Paul Wellstone

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I appreciate all of the work of the Ethics Committee staff and others to ensure that the tough new gift restrictions scheduled to go into effect January 1, 1996, will not have any technical problems associated with their implementation. The Ethics Committee has provided very useful technical guidance, and I believe that its effort to clarify questions now will generally improve the effective implementation of the new rule. I do, however, have a concern about one interpretation described by Senator McConnell and Levin, and wanted to outline that concern for the record. In one of the several colloquies between Senator Levin and Senator McConnell designed to provide interpretive guidance to the Ethics Committee, a question is raised about the exception regarding informational materials provided to Senators and staff. This exchange is designed to ensure that acceptance of sets of books, such as encyclopedias or the annotated U.S. Code, would continue under the new rule to be prohibited--as is true under current Senate practice. This exchange is an effort to apply a tough, narrow interpretative standard to this provision, and I support its intent. However, it might be inferred from the statements in the colloquy that the provision of all videotape--or even CD or audiotape--sets should be exempted from the new rule. An example is offered by Senator McConnell of a series of videotapes produced by the Public Broadcasting Service--its much-acclaimed series on the Civil War--which years ago was permitted, under current rules, to be given to Members of Congress. One can imagine other examples of such videotape sets being offered to Senators, such as the recent PBS series on baseball, which might be treated similarly under current rules. It is true current Senate rules would not prohibit members from receiving such taped sets. However, I have always understood the intent of the informational materials exception in the new rule to be to foster free and unfettered communication with Members of the Senate and staff, allowing them to accept information that is generally designed to inform their legislative or other policy work. In my judgment, a television entertainment series on the Civil War, or on the history of baseball, or on a similar topic, should generally be considered in a different light than other informational material that might, for example, help legislators form judgments about OSHA reform, the EPA, or some other topic. Thus such sets of videotapes should be considered gifts subject to the limits contained in the new rule. I believe the Ethics Committee should make judgments about how to interpret and apply this provision on a case-by-case basis, considering a number of factors in its interpretation, including most importantly the public policy nature of the informational material and its usefulness in informing legislators on appropriate issues. While the technical amendments do not address this issue, this question has been raised now and I thought it would be useful to offer my own views for the further guidance of the Committee. I urge the Committee to consider carefully its interpretation of this provision. I will monitor closely the implementation of the rule in this area to ensure that it does not allow a loophole to develop that may be subject to abuse. If such abuse were to take place, I intend to move quickly to stop it.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I will be speaking about this in much more detail over the next week or so. We have to do something about this, I say to my colleagues. On the last continuing resolution, finally I was able to get, and Senator Jeffords and others can talk about what's happening in their States, $2 million more for my State. That is it. But that is a pittance. We have long waiting lists of people who need the assistance, and adequate funds are not available. That's why people are having to go cold. We have to get the funding out now, and we have to figure out a way in this continuing resolution to make sure that we do so; otherwise, Mr. President, there is no question that in the United States of America, this winter some people will likely freeze to death. For God's sake, Democrats, Republicans, Independents, liberals, conservatives, and whatever other label you choose to call yourself or apply to yourself, let us try to do better, and let us try to make sure in this continuing resolution that we are able to get some of this funding out. We should not be freezing people on the installment plan. It is unconscionable. It is not right. We should not be doing this. We have to take some action. I yield the floor.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Chair. I thank my colleagues. Mr. President, I rise to express my deep concern about the current state of funding for the Low-Income Energy Assistance Program [LIHEAP]. In the State of Minnesota last year there were about 110,000 households--over 300,000 men, women and children--who receive energy assistance. They received an average energy assistance benefit of about $360 per heating season. That was last year. This year, given the huge cuts in LIHEAP funding already enacted, that grant is expected to be about $200, even though for these households during the heating season, the overall cost of their heating bill is somewhere between $1,800 and $2,000. Last year, we funded this program at a little over $1.3 billion. We had a rescissions package which contained a cut of $319 million. On the Senate side, the appropriators proposed to fund this program at $900 million, and on the House side, it has been zeroed out. In this bloodless debate that we too often have about the budget, I think sometimes we are completely disconnected from people's lives. That's why I would like to talk about what is going on in Minnesota right now, and what is going on in other cold-weather States. I speak about this with some sense of urgency. Last year, Minnesota received about $50 million in heating assistance. This year, we have received so far, after the last continuing resolution, about $9 million. Usually by this time, we have received about $20-$25 million. The energy assistance program, I say to my colleagues who are not from cold-weather States, is really not a year-long program. It is effectively a 6-month program. You need to allocate the heating money now during the cold-weather months. It is truly an example of a program where you cannot do it over a 1-year period of time. You need to get the assistance to people now when they need it. What we have going on right now with the way we have been funding this program that we are forcing people to freeze on the installment plan. That has to change. I hope there will be a change in the third continuing resolution which we'll likely have before this body next week. Let me put my colleagues on notice: This will not be the last time I am going to speak about the Energy Assistance Program here on the floor. I intend to raise the alarm until something gets done on it. It may be--and people may have a hard time understanding this--it may be that in Washington, DC, when it is 30 or 40 or 50 degrees, in my State of Minnesota, it can be 10 degrees below zero, and in some parts of the State, those are exactly the kinds of temperature with which we have been faced. I want to give a couple of examples, just a few examples, of what this actually means to people who rely on LIHEAP benefits. Nancy Watson is 55 years old. She is disabled. She lives in Clear Lake, MN. Her income is from SSI and medical assistance. It is $529 a month. She received her grant of $81 this year for energy assistance, and she does not know what she is going to do for the rest of the year. [[Page S 18182]] Mr. President, in the State of Minnesota, there are people who have been cut off already from utilities. There are people who do not have propane or fuel in their tanks. There are people who do not have any heat at all, and who are having to struggle to patch together help from friends, churches, the Salvation Army--anywhere they can get it. There are elderly people who have closed off all but one room of their homes. That is all the heating they can afford. There are people who have the thermostat turned down to 50 degrees. What are we going to do about that in the U.S. Congress? Mr. President, Clara Mager is a 73-year-old resident of a town on Minnesota's Iron Range. She receives $675 per month in Social Security. She lives alone and raised six children on her own. She has just received her grant of $222. She owed her fuel provider, Inter-City Oil, $177, and on Monday had only 60 gallons left in the fuel tanks. She wonders what she is going to do at the end of December or in January or in February or in March. In Blue Earth County, we have talked with a woman who is 90 years old. I will make a long story short. She is very worried about how she's going to heat her home, and she has now reached the conclusion, after having been self-reliant and self-sufficient her whole life, that she may have to move into a nursing home. Mr. President, you can criticize the Low-Income Energy Assistance Program. There are imperfections in all our programs. But let me remind my colleagues that nationally, two-thirds of the energy households have an income of less than $8,000 a year. More than half have incomes below $6,000 a year. I tell my colleagues today, and I am going to speak about this over the next week: we have to do something now in this continuing resolution, we have to get adequate funding allocated to people who need it. The total cost of the Energy Assistance Program does not equal the cost of one B-2 bomber, and if we do not do anything, I say to my colleagues, Democrats and Republicans alike, I guarantee you that sooner or later there will be people in our country in the cold-weather States who will freeze to death. Then we will do something. We should not wait. We should not wait. That would be wrong. We can do better. People expect more of us. Nobody in 1994 voted for an elimination of an energy assistance program for the most vulnerable citizens in this country to make sure, whether they are elderly or whether they are children or whether people with disabilities or whether they are a working poor family, that they at least have this survival supplement. We cannot keep doing it this way. In my State of Minnesota, by now, we have just over $9 million that we are getting out to people. It is 10 degrees. It is 8 degrees. In northern Minnesota, it will reach zero or below tonight. There is a windchill below zero. People are cold, and we have to get this assistance out to those who need it. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the text of a draft letter that is circulating among Senators, and that will soon be sent to Chairman Hatfield, from the Northeast-Midwest Coalition. I was part of the effort, and urged that such a letter be done. Senator Jeffords from Vermont is co-chair of this coalition, and we have worked with him on the effort. It makes the case clearly for addressing the LIHEAP problem in the next CR.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for about 8 minutes as in morning business.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, the conference report the Senate is currently considering does some weighty damage to the 1994 Violent Crime Prevention Act passed by a bipartisan Congress last year. It would dismantle the Community Oriented Policing Services [COPS] Program, block grant it, and combine it with the crime prevention block grant into one big block grant. It would also cut funding for the resulting block grant. Along the way it destroys funding for child safety centers. The bill does fully fund the Violence Against Women Act, also known as VAWA, and for that I am grateful. Mr. President, I want to begin my statement by focusing on the positive, and by congratulating my colleagues for deciding to fully fund VAWA. The conference report restores the $76 million for VAWA that the House would have cut. VAWA funds are of vital importance to this nation. VAWA funds training for police, prosecutors, and victims advocates to target family violence and rape; programs to reduce sexual abuse and exploitation of young people; training for judges and prosecutors on victims of child abuse; training for State court judges on rape, sexual assault, and domestic violence cases, and programs to address domestic violence in rural areas. Last year, $240 million was promised by Congress for the Violence Against Women Act [VAWA] programs for fiscal year 1996--$176.7 million for VAWA [[Page S 18171]] programs administered by the Department of Justice, and $61.9 million for VAWA programs administered by the Department of Health and Human Services. All of this is funded out of $4.2 billion provided by the Crime Trust Fund in 1996. Funding in the Crime Trust Fund comes from eliminating 123,000 Federal jobs and cutting domestic discretionary spending. Full funding of the Violence Against Women Program has no effect on the budget deficit and requires no new taxes. Now, I want my colleagues to clearly understand what this all means. Last year, we as a country decided that addressing crime was a top priority. We decided that savings from streamlining the Federal Government and cutting other domestic programs would go to fight crime. As a country we made a commitment to breaking the cycle of violence and see that a person's home is the safe place that it should be. As of today, we are still living up to that commitment, by supporting this program. I must also commend my colleagues on the Appropriation Subcommittee on Labor/HHS for their efforts and wisdom in fully funding the Violence Against Women Act program under their jurisdiction. We must remember all the programs in the Violence Against Women Act are a package. Senator Biden and others worked for 5 years on this piece of legislation. All the pieces of it fit together. They all must be in place for it to work effectively. For example, we can encourage arrests by police officers but if they are not properly trained to understand the dynamics of domestic violence, an arrest could make the situation more explosive. Likewise, if more batterers are being arrested but judges are not trained to understand or take domestic violence seriously, batterers are likely to go free or be charged with lesser offenses. Violence Against Women Act programs deserve the funds we are giving them. Anything less would have resulted in a betrayal of the bipartisan promise Congress made. Domestic violence must continue to be a priority for national crime-fighting efforts. We know all too well that violence in the home seeps out into our streets. If we do not stop the violence in the home we will never stop it in the streets. We knew this when we passed the crime bill last year and it is still true today. As I travel and meet more and more women and children who are victims of domestic violence, I become even more outraged that a woman's home can be the most dangerous, violent, or deadly place she can be; if she is a mother, the same is true for her children. It was with the passage of the Violence Against Women Act that Congress said, loud and clear, it is time to stop the cycle of violence, it is time to make homes safe again, and it is time to help communities across the country deal with this crisis. I thank my colleagues for protecting this program. I wish that the rest of the conference report reflected such concern on the part of my colleagues for preventing crimes. Unfortunately, the conferees have decided to block grant COPS and to combine it with local community crime prevention block grants. There are may serious problems with this approach. In passing the crime law last year, Congress authorized $75.9 million for local community crime prevention block grants for fiscal year 1996, and $1.85 billion for COPS. Instead of fully funding both individual programs, the conference report that is before us creates a single block grant, combining both the COPS program and the prevention block grants and funding the result, the local law enforcement block grant, at $1.9 billion, about $25 million less than the two programs would have cost individually. First of all, I believe that this block grant approach would open the door to funding anything under the sun that a governor determines is law enforcement or crime prevention. And it effectively could eliminate all crime prevention that was envisioned by the 1994 crime bill. For when law enforcement is pitted against crime prevention efforts, law enforcement always wins. The only specifically earmarked crime prevention money left is now the Violence Against Women Act. Out of an allocation for the Department of Justice of $14.5 billion dollars, only $175 million is directly targeted to the prevention of crimes. This, I say to my colleagues, turns the clock back on the commitment we made last year to help communities which are both fighting and trying to prevent crime. While I am on the subject of ignoring our commitments, in addition to gutting prevention programs, the conference report guts the very centerpiece of the 1994 crime law--COPS, which provides money for hiring, over 5 years, 100,000 more police officers to patrol our Nation's streets. To date, under this program, more than 25,000 police officers have been hired--in Minnesota alone, 354 new cops have been funded, and Minnesota has applied for 128 more. Importantly, each of these officers were hired to be on the beat, not in the office. At a time of very tight budgets, the money for both the COPS Program and the crime prevention block grant come from savings achieved by reducing the Federal bureaucracy. None of these new police officers or crime prevention programs are adding an additional burden on the taxpayer. We as a Congress, and indeed a country, made fighting crime a top priority last year when we decided to use the savings from streamlining the Federal Government and from cutting some domestic programs for fighting crime. The COPS Program is a good program. It is reaching and helping communities. It is very flexible. Local jurisdictions can work with the Justice Department to meet their particular needs. The Justice Department has acted swiftly, has minimized the paperwork, and has staffed 800 numbers for immediate assistance. It is not surprising, therefore, that approximately 200 Minnesota jurisdictions have participated in this program. What's more, Attorney General Janet Reno has created a new effort at the Department of Justice to target some of these new cops on the beat to help address domestic violence. Having more cops involved in community policing fighting crime means less crime. It is as simple as that. In only a short time the COPS Program is already delivering on its promise of providing more police officers in a very cost effective, flexible manner. Not surprisingly those on the frontline in the fight against crime have only praise for this program. Police chiefs, sheriffs, deputies, and rank-and-file police officers all support this effort to put more police in communities. But now this very successful and popular crime-fighting program is under attack by Republicans who have converted its funding into a block grant. The conference report block grant plan does not stipulate that the money must be spent on hiring cops. Instead, the money can be redirected to fund restaurant inspectors, parking meters, radar guns-- and any other of a host of things. The money ought to be spent the way it was intended and the way law enforcement officials want it spent: to hire police officers. The Nation's major police enforcement organizations all agree on this point. We all know that crime is one of the great plagues of our communities. People in the suburbs and people living downtown are afraid--they are afraid to go out at night, they are afraid to venture into the skyways, they are afraid to leave their cars parked on the street. We also all know that having a larger police presence helps deter the very crimes that people fear the most. Buying more parking meters, radar guns, or hiring more restaurant inspectors does not address this plague nor address peoples' legitimate fears. It is peculiar that the party that claims to be tough on law and order is proposing as one of their first steps to change a successful, cost-effective law and order program--one that ought to have broad, bipartisan support. Crime prevention was also an essential element of the crime bill. Despite the fact that at each step of the way in passing the crime bill prevention programs got watered down, in the end we decided that crime prevention had to be part of that bill. Two years ago, when Congress began consideration of the crime bill, we started with a substantial portion of the crime bill addressing prevention; after all, prevention is crime control, stopping crime before it ever happens. [[Page S 18172]] It, by the way, included something that I think is extremely important--supervised visitation centers. A model that I brought from Minnesota to help families with a history of violence, which I will discuss in a moment. Ultimately, we ended up with a crime bill that included a block grant to the States for prevention programs--the local community crime prevention block grant. And, funding was not even authorized until fiscal year 1996. We haven't even given it a chance to work and get into communities--the only provision in the crime bill other than VAWA that was intended to prevent crime, one of the few provisions that was not funded until next year. The local crime prevention block grant, like the COPS program, was supposed to provide a lot of flexibility to the States and communities. Under this block grant communities could have determined what types-- within a general list of about 14 different ideas--of prevention programs to fund, and which prevention plans fit their community the best. But this block grant was for prevention, nothing else. And, as I stated earlier, it had not even had a chance to be implemented. This coming year would have been the first year funding would actually go to help communities. But instead these 14 programs are now left to compete for funds with police stations and mayors' offices and jail. The money will never make it to community prevention efforts. If we were to listen to people in the communities that are most affected by the violence, they would tell us that money has to go to prevention. You have to put some resources toward making sure our young people have opportunities. How interesting it is that those who would essentially eliminate these prevention programs do not come from those communities, do not know the people in those communities, and I do not think asked the people in those communities at all what they think should be done. Mr. President, I can just tell you that in meeting with students, students that come from some pretty tough background--students at the Work Opportunity Center in Minneapolis, which is an alternative school, young students who are mothers and others who come from real difficult circumstances, all of them said to me: You can build more prisons and you can build more jails, but the issue for us is jobs, opportunity. You will never stop this cycle of violence unless you do something that prevents it in the first place. Then I turn to the judges, the sheriffs, and the police chiefs, and I call them on the phone in Minnesota, and I ask them what they think. And they say yes we need community police and yes we need the other parts of the crime law, but they all say, if you do not do something about preventing crime, if these young people do not have these opportunities, if we do not get serious about reducing violence in the home, do not believe for a moment that we are going to stop the cycle of violence. Mr. President, I believe that a highly trained police, highly motivated, community-based, sensitive to the people in the communities, can make a difference. They are wanted and they are needed. But the conference report we are considering today will do nothing to prevent the criminal of tomorrow. And indeed without more cops on the beat it may not do much to fight the criminals of today. Every 5 seconds a child drops out of school in America. This is from the Children's Defense Fund study. Every 5 seconds a child drops out of a public school in the United States of America. Every 30 seconds a baby is born into poverty. Every 2 minutes a baby is born with a low birthweight. Every 2 minutes a baby is born to a mother who had no prenatal care. Every 4 minutes a child is arrested for an alcohol-related crime. Every 7 minutes a child is arrested for selling drugs. Every 2 hours a child is murdered. Every 4 hours a child commits suicide, takes his or her life in the United States of America. And every 5 minutes a child is arrested for a violent crime. Mr. President, if we do not continue to be serious about the prevention part, we are not going to stop the cycle of violence. All too many young people are growing up in neighborhoods and communities in our country where if they bump into someone or look at someone the wrong way they are in trouble, where there is too much violence in their homes, where violence pervades every aspect of their life. And people who grow up in such brutal circumstances can become brutal. And that should not surprise any of us. Prevention and law enforcement--both essential elements of any crime fighting effort. These two should not have to compete with each other for funding, nor should funding be cut for either. Which brings me to the most painful part of my statement today. This new block grant takes away funding for child safety centers. By discarding local community crime prevention block grants, which would have provided funding for child safety centers specifically as one of its 14 prevention programs, the conference report discards this program as well. Child safety centers were created by the Child Safety Act, which became law in 1994 as part of the crime bill. It authorized funds to create supervised visitation centers for families who have a history of violence. The prevalence of family violence in our society is staggering. Studies show that 25 percent of all violence occurs among people who are related. Data indicates that the incidence of violence in families escalates during separation and divorce. Many of these assaults occur in the context of visitation. Supervised visitation centers would: Provide supervised visitation for families where there has been documented sexual, physical, or emotional abuse. Provide supervised visitation for families where there is suspected or elevated risk of sexual, physical, or emotional abuse, or where there have been threats of parental abduction of the child. Provide a safe and neutral place for parents to visit with children who have been put in foster care because of abuse and neglect. Provide a safe location for custodial parents to temporarily transfer custody of their children to non-custodial parents. Serve as an additional safeguard against children witnessing abuse of a parent or sustaining injury to themselves. The Child Safety Act would have supported the establishment and operation of approximately 30 centers across the United States. The Child Safety Act requires grant recipients to submit an annual report to the Secretary of Health and Human Services on the volume and type of services provided at the supervised visitation center. Twenty percent of the grants made under the Child Safety Act would support the establishment of special visitation centers created to study the effectiveness of supervised visitation on sexually and severely physically abused children. These centers would be staffed with qualified clinicians and would have enhanced data collection capabilities. From the reports submitted by grant recipients, the Secretary would prepare and submit a report to Congress on the effectiveness of supervised visitation centers. Mr. President, because this program is unenumerated it doesn't stand a chance in competition with other, established entities under the conference report's block grant. Mr. President, there is nothing that will replace this program. There is no one who will step in and take care of these children. There is no one who will try to make these families whole. The communities trying desperately to repair themselves will get no help from us. Mr. President, for this and the other reasons I have discussed today, I have severe reservations regarding this conference report.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, on the eve of his 50th wedding anniversary, I take this opportunity to pay tribute to Judge Gerald W. Heaney, a distinguished jurist who is beginning his 30th year of service on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. Although Judge Heaney assumed senior status on December 31, 1988, he continues to handle an impressive workload, bringing to each case the same unyielding compassion, fairness, and sense of justice that has marked his tenure on the bench since his appointment on December 1, 1966. Gerald Heaney was born on January 29, 1918, in Goodhue, MN, a rural community in the southeastern part of the State. In that productive farming community, he learned the values of close family, honesty, and hard work: qualities that have distinguished his public service. Judge Heaney received his undergraduate education at the College of St. Thomas and his law degree from the University of Minnesota in 1941. At the outbreak of World War II, Gerald Heaney enlisted in the U.S. Army. Serving with the distinguished 2d Ranger Infantry Battalion, his extraordinary bravery in the Battle of La Pointe du Hoc during the D- day landing at Normandy earned him the Silver Star. He was also decorated with the Bronze Star and five battle stars before he was honorably discharged with the rank of captain on January 18, 1946. At the end of World War II, Judge Heaney married Eleanor Schmitt. Of his wife, Judge Heaney recently said, ``I am fortunate to have married Eleanor. She has been the love of my life and my friend, my companion. She has brought stability to me, to our children, and to our grandchildren.'' In December of this year, Gerald and Eleanor Heaney celebrate their 50th wedding anniversary by renewing their wedding vows at the College of Saint Scholastic Chapel in Duluth, MN. Judge Heaney began his legal career with the firm of Lewis, Hammer, Heaney, Weyl & Halverson. During his 20 years of private practice, Gerald Heaney dedicated himself to serving the disadvantaged and those seeking equality. To cite one example of this dedication, Judge Heaney represented teachers in their successful fight to make Duluth the first school district in Minnesota to adopt the same pay scale for both male and female teachers. While in private practice, Judge Heaney continually demonstrated his commitment to the improvement of the State's educational system. He worked actively with the Governor and State legislature to develop a State school aid formula, which remains in use today and continues to serve as a model for the rest of the Nation. Judge Heaney also served on the board of regents of the University of Minnesota, an institution to which he has devoted a lifetime of loyal service in recognition of its importance to the lives and welfare of Minnesota citizens. In 1966, with the support of Senators Eugene McCarthy and Walter Mondale, Vice President Hubert H. Humphrey, and congressional representative John A. Blatnik, President Lyndon B. Johnson appointed Gerald Heaney to the Eighth Circuit of Appeals. Former Vice President Walter Mondale said of Judge Heaney: ``I have served many years in public life and one of the best things I did was to support the nomination of Gerald W. Heaney to be a Circuit Judge for the Eighth Circuit.'' Since his appointment, Judge Heaney has authored over 2,000 judicial opinions in which he has demonstrated leadership in many different and complex areas of law including school desegregation, civil rights, employment discrimination, Social Security disability cases, criminal law, labor relations, first amendment jurisprudence, and commercial litigation. These opinions evidence Judge Heaney's guiding principle: All persons--regardless of race, color, or creed--are entitled to equal protection under the law. At the unveiling of his portrait at the Federal courthouse in St. Paul, MN, Judge Heaney commented on the challenges facing our society and those in public service, ``It has been no simple task to preserve freedom, and it will not be simple in the future. Every democracy is fragile. It needs our constant and unwavering support. This is the task to which we must all rededicate ourselves.'' Judge Heaney continues to leave his mark on the landscape of the law in this country. As his colleague, Judge Donald P. Lay, former chief judge of the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, has said, In my judgment he is the most outstanding judge ever to serve, not only on the Eighth Circuit but throughout the United States, in the last 25 years. He is the most well- prepared judge in the circuit. His industry and dedication to law are unparalleled. His compassion and understanding of human problems is unique. He is a scholar and true gentleman in all respects.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, last month, President Clinton at a White House ceremony accepted the final report of the Advisory Committee on Human Radiation Experiments. Following Energy Secretary Hazel O'Leary's announcement early in 1994 about secret human radiation experiments carried out or sponsored by the [[Page S 17511]] U.S. Government, President Clinton created the advisory committee to advise the Human Radiation Interagency Working Group on the ethical and scientific issues related to such experiments. The Human Radiation Interagency Working Group, is a Cabinet-level body that includes the Secretary of Veterans Affairs Jesse Brown. I believe the advisory committee should be commended for devoting considerable attention to atomic veterans in its final report and including two recommendations concerning compensation for them. On several occasions, I strongly advocated that the advisory committee include atomic veterans in their inquiry. In February, for example, I issued a statement urging the panel to include atomic veterans in their final report and recommend specific options for the Government to provide recourse to atomic veterans seeking compensation. At that time, I stressed: By any standard atomic veterans are perhaps America's most neglected group of veterans, and with the work of the advisory committee we now have an excellent opportunity to finally answer some of these veterans' questions and to address some of the injustices they have suffered. In March, I had the honor of being the only Senator to publicly testify before the advisory committee--dedicating my testimony to the Forgotten 216th. I did so not only because many of these atomic veterans are Minnesotans but also because they have done so much to educate me about the plight of atomic veterans and their brave and continuing fight for justice. Mr. President, since January 1994, I have had numerous meetings and contacts with the men of the Forgotten 216th and their families. Since their problems typify those of other atomic veterans nationwide, permit me to tell you about veterans of the U.S. Army's 216th Chemical Service Company and about why they now term themselves the Forgotten 216th. The Forgotten 216th participated in a series of atmospheric nuclear tests in Nevada in 1952 called Operation Tumbler Snapper. They believed their Government's assurances that it would protect them against any harm, but now are convinced they were used as guinea pigs with no concern shown for their safety. Many were sent to measure fallout at or near ground zero immediately after a nuclear bomb blast, encountering radiation so high that their geiger counters literally went off the scale while they inhaled and ingested radioactive particles. They were given little or no protection, sometimes even lacking film badges to measure their exposure to radiation and were not informed of the dangers they faced. Moreover, they were sworn to secrecy about their participation in nuclear tests, sometimes denied access to their own service health records, and provided with no followup health care or even medical monitoring. Many members of the 216th have already died, often of cancer. Is it any wonder these men now refer to themselves as the Forgotten 216th? Given this horrendous situation, I was delighted to see that the advisory committee report included a recommendation that held out hope that the Forgotten 216th and other atomic veterans may never again be forgotten by the Government that placed them in harm's way. The report urged the Human Radiation Interagency Working Group to work in conjunction with Congress to promptly address the concerns expressed by atomic veterans. Among these concerns cited by the committee are several that I have long believed needed to be addressed, including: The list of presumptive diseases for which atomic vets automatically receive VA compensation is incomplete and inadequate. The standard of proof for those atomic vets without a presumptive disease cannot be met and, given the incompleteness of the exposure records retained by the Government, inappropriate. Time and money spent on contractors and consultants in administering the program, particularly the dose reconstructions required for most atomic vets filing claims with the VA, would be better spent on directly aiding vets and their survivors. With regard to the last two concerns, it is important to note that the advisory committee found that ``the Government did not create or maintain adequate records regarding the exposure of all participants [and] the identity and test locale of all participants. * * *'' This finding justifiably calls into question the ability of the Government to come up with accurate dose reconstructions on which the approval of claims for VA compensation of many atomic veterans depend. In the aftermath of the President's acceptance of the report, Jesse Brown announced the establishment of an interagency working group consisting of representatives from the VA, HHS, and DOD in response to the advisory committee's recommendations concerning compensation for atomic veterans. The interagency working group is expected to submit its report to the Human Radiation Interagency Working Group in the spring of 1996. Both advisory committee recommendations on atomic veterans urge the Human Radiation Interagency Working Group to work in tandem with the Congress to implement them and, therefore, I have requested that my distinguished colleague Chairman Simpson hold hearings soon after the interagency working group established by Secretary Brown issues its report in the spring. The purpose of the hearings would be to permit the Committee on Veterans' Affairs to determine what legislative action may need to be taken. It is worth noting that the cover of every copy of the Atomic Veterans Newsletter, the official publication of the National Association of Atomic Veterans, contains the simple but eloquent statement: ``The atomic veteran seeks no special favor * * * simply justice.'' Their fight for justice has been long, hard, and frustrating, but these patriotic and deserving veterans have persevered. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues from both sides of the aisle to join me in seeking to ensure that atomic veterans finally win their struggle for justice.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, yesterday morning there was an article in the Washington Post. It dealt with some of the debate that is now taking place about the budget and veterans. We can agree to disagree, but there was one piece in this article that really captured my attention, as a Senator from Minnesota. This was: The conferees sent what they called a ``strong message'' of displeasure to Veterans Affairs Secretary Jesse Brown, in the form of sharp cuts in his office's staff and travel budget. Mr. President, I would like to talk a little bit about Jesse Brown, Secretary of Veterans Affairs. Jesse Brown is one of our Nation's most able and outspoken veterans advocates. He is a man who is a Marine combat veteran, a Marine combat hero who served our country with honor and distinction. Mr. President, he is a disabled veteran who, long before he became Secretary of what he calls ``For Veterans Affairs,'' was one of the most important voices and strongest voices for veterans, especially disabled veterans in the United States of America. I would like to make it very clear, as a Senator from Minnesota, that I do not believe these kinds of attacks, petty attacks on his personal office travel budget, will silence Jesse Brown. My colleagues are sadly mistaken, they are profoundly mistaken, if they believe any form of retaliation will silence this Secretary, who is such a powerful advocate for veterans, based upon his own personal life, based upon his service for this country, and based upon his position. Since taking office in 1993, let me just list a few of the impressive accomplishments of Secretary Jesse Brown, ``Secretary for Veterans.'' Agent orange--in 1993, a VA-sponsored review conducted by the National Academy of Sciences found that certain cancers and illnesses could be caused by agent orange exposure. The VA promptly responded by presuming service-connection for these diseases--long overdue. Mr. President, homeless veterans convened the first National Summit on Homelessness Among Veterans. It is a scandal that such a large percentage of our street people and homeless people are veterans. This Secretary, Jesse Brown, will not be silenced. Persian Gulf veterans fought hard to make sure Persian Gulf veterans were not forgotten, to compensate certain Persian Gulf veterans with [[Page S 17422]] undiagnosed illnesses. Mr. President, Secretary Jesse Brown will not be silenced. Streamline and make the VA more responsive, a plan to decentralize the VA national health care system, which is now being implemented. Mr. President, Secretary Jesse Brown will not be silenced. Women veterans: He implemented a series of health care initiatives for women, established eight women veterans Comprehensive Health Care Centers. Mr. President, Secretary Jesse Brown will not be silenced. There are many more accomplishments that I could list, but I want to just end with one personal story, which I think tells a very large story about Secretary Jesse Brown. Tim Gilmore fought for our country in the Vietnam war. He suffered from agent orange exposure, and he died of cancer. Toward the end of his life, Tim Gilmore was tormented by one fact. He knew he would not have long to live, but he had not received any compensation. By the rules that we operate under, if he did not receive any compensation before he passed away, there was a very real question whether his family would ever receive any compensation. He was tormented by this. When Secretary Jesse Brown came to my State, this family made a personal appeal to him, the veterans community made a personal appeal to him to somehow, please, cut through the bureaucracy and please have some compassion and please be an advocate for Tim Gilmore and his family. Mr. President, I made the same appeal. Time went by, Tim Gilmore became weaker, and it was very clear he was going to pass away soon. A very short period of time before Tim Gilmore passed away, Secretary Jesse Brown made sure that he received compensation, made sure that his family would receive that compensation. That family has never forgotten that. To Tim Gilmore, a Vietnam vet who died from agent orange exposure, that was one of the most important things before he passed away. I will be indebted, as a Senator from Minnesota, to Secretary Jesse Brown forever, for his compassion and his strength and commitment to people. I will say to my colleagues, you can do whatever you want to his travel budget or personal budget, but you are not going to silence him. He is going to continue to talk about this budget and how it affects veterans. I will mention one point I have been focused on, as a U.S. Senator, and I will be pleased to debate this with anyone. I think what we are doing here in the health care field puts way too many veterans in very serious jeopardy for the following reason: Our veterans population is also becoming an aging population. We all know that. If you have reductions in Medicare--and we continue to go through this debate about whether it is lessening the rate of increase or a cut. I do not even want to get into the semantics. I want to tell you, there is only one way you look at it. Look at the year 2002; ask how many people are going to be 65 years of age or over, how many of them are going to be 85 years of age or over; you ask what kind of services they are going to require, and you ask whether or not you are investing the resources to make sure they get them. We are not. If you have those reductions in Medicare and reductions in medical assistance, you are going to have more of the elderly people coming to the veterans health care system for health care. Then, if you have the reduction in the VA health care system as well, it becomes a triple whammy. Secretary Jesse Brown is going to continue to be a strong advocate for veterans. I will say to my colleagues, he is going to continue to challenge your budget and he is going to continue to say, ``Why don't you ask the oil companies to sacrifice a little bit, or the coal companies, or the tobacco companies, or the pharmaceutical companies? And how come you give all this money to military contractors, above and beyond what the Pentagon asked for? And how come you have all these rapid depreciation allowances and cuts in capital gains?'' I listened to my colleague from Mississippi speak with considerable intelligence the other day about this. He is a very able Senator. But this Secretary of Veterans Affairs is going to continue to challenge these priorities. He should. We do not need any hate, I think all of us agree. But we will have the debate. It will be an important debate for this country. I believe Secretary Jesse Brown will be a very powerful voice in that debate. I come to the floor of the Senate to speak in his behalf today. I yield the floor.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, as I listened to my colleague from Mississippi--and I am really sorry he is not here, and the reason he is not here, he has other work to do. We speak and we leave. He is not here because he is unwilling to be engaged in debate. He certainly is. In many ways, I think this debate goes way beyond the whole question of a balanced budget, since I think all Senators believe we ought to pay the interest off on our debt. But I am reminded of David Stockman's book in the early 1980's, and I think this Gingrich agenda is not really about balancing the budget. I think it is about overturning 60 years of people's history, because if it was about balancing the budget, there would be some standard of fairness. If it was about balancing the budget, you would have military contractors that would be asked to sacrifice and would be asked to tighten their belt. If it was about balancing the budget, you would not have all of these tax giveaways which disproportionately flow to those people at the top of the income ladder. If this was about balancing the budget, we would have everything on the table and all of those tax loopholes and tax breaks and tax giveaways that the Pulitzer prize-winning journalists Bartlett and Steele talk about in their book ``America: Who Really Pays Their Taxes,'' all of that would be on the table. I do not even think this is about balancing the budget, because if it was about balancing the budget, we would be looking at all of those areas, and we would be asking all of the citizens of our country to be willing to be a part of the sacrifice, because they are more than willing to do so. This is not about balancing the budget. This is about overturning 60 years of people's history, and there is going to be one heck of a debate on the floor of the Senate, but most important of all, there is going to be a huge debate in this country, and let me give but a few examples. Mr. President, in 1965, we passed the Medicare and the Medical Assistance Program. There was a reason we passed those programs. They did not represent Heaven on Earth, but they made life a lot better for people who were elderly and also low-income people. There are imperfections. We can do better. But I want to just say to my colleagues that this Gingrich agenda--I have called it very reckless with the lives of the people in our country--let me just tell you that it will have a very serious and a very negative impact on the lives of Minnesotans. I said it before when I was debating Haley Barbour the other day on a show, he was talking about this agenda--and I will not put words into his mouth, he is not here to debate me; that is not fair--but I kept coming back to him and saying, ``You don't know my State: In my State, we have already kept the costs down and now you are penalizing us for keeping costs down?'' I said, ``You don't know my State: In greater Minnesota, in rural Minnesota, many of our caregivers, our hospitals, our doctors, our clinics have a patient payment mix where it is 60, 70 percent Medicare.'' ``You don't know my State.'' I went on to say, ``You don't know my State: Seventy thousand senior citizens in Minnesota are poor. Stop talking about the elderly as if they are affluent.'' ``You don't know my State: The median income for elderly people is $17,000 a year and, on the average, every year they pay $2,500 out of pocket.'' ``You don't know my State: Many of them can't afford prescription drug costs.'' ``You don't know my State: My mother and father are no longer alive. They both had Parkinson's disease. Without Medicare coverage--they never had any money--they would have gone under.'' I just feel as if the people who designed this agenda do not know my State. I think they have moved way beyond the goodness of people in America. It is too extreme and it is too harsh. ``You don't know my State: 300,000 children are covered by medical assistance. We have done a great job in Minnesota using that program as a safety net for children.'' ``You don't know my State: Many families are able to keep a severely disabled child at home because of medical assistance and now they worry that they may not be able to do that.'' ``You don't know my State: Two-thirds of the people in the nursing homes receive medical assistance, and we are trying to figure out who makes up that gap.'' Mr. President, I heard my colleague from Mississippi say it is about values. He is right, it is about values. And I will tell you something right now. I am confident that Minnesotans believe it is far more important to invest in health care and the health and intellect and character of young people--education--and also to provide children with a chance than it is to give away all these tax breaks to large corporations, to have these tax giveaways, $245 billion mainly going to people on the top, to have a Pentagon budget that is over what the Pentagon asked. You better believe it is all about choices. That is exactly what it is about. But this Gingrich agenda is not an agenda to balance the budget. It is an agenda to move our country not into the 21st century but back into the 19th century. Mr. President, we did not get it right in the last 60 years, but we made gains for people. We developed a safety net. It did not mean that every child had it so good. But at least we made it better for children. We had a safety net that at least gave us some assurance that children would not be so impoverished that they, in fact, would go hungry. I argue, if we are going to talk about values that I believe as a Senator from Minnesota, I believe as the son of a Jewish immigrant from Russia, I believe as a former college teacher, I believe as a father, and I believe as a grandfather that every infant, regardless of gender and regardless of race and regardless of income and regardless of rural or urban, should have the same chance to fully develop his potential or her potential. Now we have a safety net program for low-income children slashed by $82 billion, $17 billion more than the Senate ``welfare reform'' bill. Now we have the School Lunch Program cut by $6 billion. We have had two studies, one of them by Health and Human Services and one of them by the Office of Management and Budget, and those studies told us something we did not want to know, or at least some of my colleagues do not want to know, which is that these cuts in these programs will mean that there will be more impoverished children in America and more children will go hungry in America. This is all about values, that is for certain, but it is not about balancing the budget. I brought to the floor of the Senate an amendment, and it says we could cut $70 billion by just having some tax fairness. We have a Tax Code for regular people; we have a Tax Code for privileged people. I looked at a number of different areas. I looked at the minimum tax, retaining the minimum tax for large multinational corporations in this budget bill; that is no longer there. I looked at subsidies for oil companies and coal companies. I looked at subsidies for pharmaceutical companies, and the list could go on and on. Mr. President, what my colleagues do not tell you about are these tax giveaways, all the cuts in capital gains tax, all the cuts in rapid depreciation allowances, you name it. People in this country do not believe that we ought to at this time of tight budgets, at this time of deficit reduction be doing this in such a way that we ask the citizens to tighten their belts who cannot tighten their belts; that we target the elderly, we target people with disabilities, we target children, for God's sake, we target working families, families with incomes under $27,000 a year. But, at the same time, we have tax giveaways for the wealthy. We do not take on any of the corporate welfare. We let all these large companies continue with all of their tax loopholes and all of their tax breaks, and the military contractors have it just fine. Mr. President, this is not about balancing the budget. This is an effort on the part of my colleagues to essentially say that they do not believe in a country where we focus so much on education, and equality of opportunity, and adequate health care for people, health care that is delivered in a humane and dignified way; they do not think the public sector should be involved in this area. As a matter of fact, they think when it comes to some of the most pressing problems of people's lives, there is nothing the Government can or should do. That is a great philosophy if you own your own large corporation. But if you do not, if you are in the majority in this country, what we are talking about right here is an assault on what is the dearest principle of this country, which is equality of opportunity. Mr. President, this is not a debate about balancing the budget. This is a debate about what this country stands for. This is a debate about the very values people hold dear. I will tell you right now, Mr. President, people in this country do not believe in the harshness of this Gingrich budget. They believe it is mean-spirited, they believe it is extreme, they believe it goes too far. And the more people come to understand what is in this budget proposal, the less they are going to like it. As a Senator from Minnesota, I am very proud to speak on the floor of the Senate on behalf of what I consider to be the vast majority of people in my State. I am proud to speak against this budget proposal. I do not believe that this proposal is good for this Nation. I do not believe that this proposal brings this Nation forward. I think it turns the clock backward. I think most people in the country believe that. I think the President, without a doubt, will veto this, and we will have a debate again, based upon substantive work, based upon what I hope will be a set of proposals that will make this Nation all that this Nation can be. This budget ought not to be accepted. This budget should not pass. It will. This budget will be vetoed by the President. He should do so. As far as I am concerned, we can have a debate about the values. We can have a debate about choices, and we can have a debate about priorities for America, and we can take it right to the 1996 election. I will be proud to say to Minnesotans that I am the children's Senator and that I fight hard for senior citizens. I will be proud to say to Minnesotans that I am a health care Senator. I will be proud to say to Minnesotans that I am an education Senator. I will be proud to say to Minnesotans that I think some of the heavy hitters and large special interests ought to also be asked to tighten their belts. I will be proud to say to Minnesotans that my vote, my debate, my words, and what I do as a U.S. Senator is based upon a Minnesota sense of fairness. That is lacking in this budget. It should be defeated. I yield the floor. Mr. ABRAHAM addressed the Chair.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, true, I was here waiting for a long time. I would like 15.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Can I say to the Senator from Nebraska, I will try to do 10. If I go a little over--why not put 15? Put 15 and I will try to do 10.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I support this bill. It contains a number of improvements in Coast Guard policy, and I commend the Committee for its work. I appreciate that the managers were able to include in their amendment a provision that is important to my state. And I am very pleased that the provision is in the bill. The provision will allow the State of Minnesota and the Coast Guard to cooperate in conducting a pilot project that will allow the State in some cases to undertake the safety inspection of small commercial vessels on certain navigable waters of the U.S. There is no more important mission of the Coast Guard than to protect the safety of citizens on U.S. waters. I certainly hope we in Congress will not act to diminish that mission or the Coast Guard's ability to perform it. I believe the provision which the managers have included to allow a pilot project in Minnesota can help demonstrate an innovative way under some circumstances to fulfill that mission completely, efficiently, cost-effectively and consistent with common sense. The provision allows the Secretary of the Department in which the Coast Guard is operating to enter into an agreement with the State of Minnesota. Under the agreement, the State may inspect small commercial passenger vessels 40 feet in length or less operating in some navigable waters in Minnesota. Minnesota, through its Department of Labor and Industry, already operates a safety inspection program for such boats on thousands of non-Federal bodies of water. The State has fully demonstrated its competence in this program and its ability to protect the public. Indeed the State's program is closely modeled already after the Coast Guard's inspection program. Under the provision, the State would be required to perform inspections that will ensure the safety and operation of the vessels in accord with standards that would apply if the Coast Guard itself were conducting the inspections. And it would require the State to report annually to the Secretary on the inspection program. The provision also allows the Secretary to adjust or waive the user fee which Congress has required the Coast Guard to collect from owners of inspected vessels when the State takes over their inspection. [[Page S 17393]] It is my hope that the success of this model of limited decentralization over the course of a 3-year pilot project can show the way for an appropriate sharing of responsibilities between Federal and State authorities in this area of public policy. At the same time, the provision in no way is meant to allow any erosion or circumvention of safety standards in Minnesota or in any other State. There may be other areas in the country where it will make sense and be completely consistent with the public interest for additional States to undertake similar responsibilities. I expect that this pilot project can demonstrate that possibility. But this provision itself implies no future expansion of the sharing of authority. It certainly should not be interpreted to mean that consistent, uniform standards of safety and operation on navigable waters are unnecessary. It is necessary to have consistent and uniform standards. As the provision makes explicit, all vessels will continue to be required to be inspected, and those inspections will be in accord with standards that would apply if the Coast Guard were conducting the inspections. Mr. President, with the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990, Congress began to require that the Coast Guard collect fees from owners of vessels it inspects to offset the government cost of those inspections. That made sense. Unfortunately, however, the fees established have seemed very high to many who are being asked to pay them, even onerous. That is why I support the cap on such fees which this bill establishes for the inspection of small commercial vessels. A $300 fee-cap is reasonable for small vessels. Additionally, though, the collection of fees revealed a certain inefficiency in the current inspection program--a method of operating which does not make common sense. There are certain lakes in the interior of Minnesota, for example, which are designated navigable waters of the U.S. because the Mississippi River, in its formative stage, runs through it. One of the lakes most affected by this issue is Lake Winnibigoshish. At the Northwest end of Lake Winnibigoshish, where the Mississippi River enters the lake, the river is very narrow. I believe a number of Senators could very easily swim across it at that point. There is a dam at the other end of the lake, where the river leaves it, so there is no river traffic or commerce that uses the lake for transport. Lake Winnibigoshish, incidentally, Mr. President, is a large lake in Northern Minnesota. It is located in the beautiful Chippewa National Forest, and also on the Leech Lake Indian Reservation. It is an excellent lake for catching walleye, our state fish, although some also fish there for Northern Pike and even for Muskies. In the winter a number of people drag small houses out onto the lake behind their cars or snowmobiles, and usually leave them there through the season, so they can fish through the ice. I mention these things to give Senators a flavor of the area of Minnesota I am discussing. Neither the cars nor the fish-houses are subject to Coast Guard authority out on the ice. During summer months on Lake Winnibigoshish, to continue that example, there are a number of small businesses which operate what the federal government considers small commercial passenger vessels. These in most cases are resort owners who operate fishing-guide businesses that take anglers out on the lake on boats which are generally under 30 feet long. Until last year, Coast Guard inspectors drove once each year from Duluth, about 100 miles away, and inspected these boats for free. Obviously, that was no problem for the owners. But suddenly last year, the Coast Guard informed the boat owners that it would cost $545 or $670 per boat for the inspections, depending on the boats' length. This would be an annual fee for the inspection of these small boats that are used for an open-water fishing season which is effectively only four or five months long. Now, the resort owners have acknowledged that collection of a fee is appropriate. They understand the value and importance of the inspections. But they object that the fees now being assessed are burdensome and out of line. Some of the resorts reportedly have stopped offering their fishing-guide services for groups of more than six passengers. The requirement does not apply when there are fewer passengers. But this means that they are foregoing business, which is not fair and is not convenient for the visitors. Furthermore, it is highly irritating to some of the resort owners, who point out that the State of Minnesota is conducting equivalent inspections of virtually identical boats on neighboring lakes for under $100. Mr. President, that is the type of situation that this provision is meant to address. We want to protect the public and uphold safety standards in every way. The State of Minnesota is fully capable of doing that and I am sure will demonstrate so through this pilot project. And these small businesses will not suffer unnecessarily burdensome fees. It is an example of how we can make appropriate regulation work in common-sense fashion by adjusting the current cookie-cutter, one-size-fits-all federal approach. I point out that it is my understanding that the State of Minnesota is not interested in taking over any Coast Guard inspection duties on bodies of water such as Lake Superior or the Mississippi, which carry substantial interstate commerce. And I repeat that the State will inspect only small commercial vessels under 40 feet in length on bodies of water agreed upon by the State and by the Secretary. I thank the managers for including the provision. And I thank the State of Minnesota and the Coast Guard for their cooperation during the drafting process. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a letter of support for the provision signed by Minnesota's Commissioner of Labor and Industry be printed in the Record.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I speak today in support of the conference report for S. 440, the National Highway System (NHS) Designation Act. With passage of this legislation over $95 million will be made available to the State of Minnesota for much needed highway renovation and construction work on the State's NHS roads. Many rural and urban intermodal routes are included in Minnesota's nearly 4,000 miles of NHS roads. Highway 2 runs from East Grand Forks on the North Dakota border to the port city of Duluth. Highway 53 runs from International Falls on the Canadian border to Cloquet, MN. Highway 52 runs from Rochester to the Twin Cities. These are just some of the routes that will be eligible for funding under NHS. These are important trade and commerce routes throughout the State. Some of my colleagues have voiced their opposition to this bill because of its motorcycle helmet language. I was pleased to support the amendment to eliminate the penalties on States like Minnesota that do not require the use of motorcycle helmets that passed during consideration of S. 440 in June. The State of Minnesota has not had a helmet law for the last 10 years. However, since the inception of Minnesota's Rider Education and Public Awareness Program, motorcycle fatalities have actually decreased. This motorcycle safety education program has been essential in my State. I do have reservations about the language in this bill that eliminates a national speed limit. However, this is a conference report and in this body we are sometimes faced with taking some provisions we don't like in order to pass a bill that on the whole is a good one. The NHS bill is a good bill. It will free up funding that is greatly needed for roads all over our country.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, the reconciliation bill now before us contains a number of provisions that are poor policy, that are unfair to those least able to defend themselves and that consider only short- term gain and not long-term loss. This is very clear from reading the Energy and Natural Resources provisions. As a member of that committee I can tell you that this reconciliation bill contains many provisions that are just plain poor energy policy, poor environmental policy, and cynical politicking. Opening the Arctic Refuge to drillings is one such provision. The Arctic Refuge is one of the last pristine wilderness areas left in America. It contains the Nation's most significant polar bear denning habitat on land, and supports 300,000 snow geese, migratory birds from six continents--some of those birds even make it to my State of Minnesota--and a concentrated porcupine caribou calving ground. Despite our uncertainty about the effects oil drilling would have on the animals, there are those who continue to push for oil drilling without an updated environmental impact statement [EIS] as required by current law. An EIS has not been done since 1987 and even that one was not sufficient back then. We just don't know what drilling would to the Arctic Refuge, and barreling ahead with drilling is just poor environmental policy. Further, the Gwich'in people have relied on those porcupine caribou for thousands of years to provide their food and meet their spiritual needs. I have heard them speak very eloquently and directly about what oil drilling in the Arctic Refuge would do to their way of life. People like the Gwich'in want to save the environment. But they are not the big oil companies. They do not have the money. They do not have the lobbyists, and they do not have the lawyers here every day. In today's Washington environment, that seems to mean that their concerns are less important than the concerns of big industry. Even if whatever amount of revenue gained were somehow worth destroying this unique land and the lives of the Gwich'in, there are a number of questions regarding whether the Arctic Refuge has oil, how much it has and what the cost would be to retrieve it. Estimates are broad and disagreements are rampant. Even I, a nonscientist, know one thing for certain: there is no way to tell how much revenue can be gained from drilling in the Arctic Refuge. New information, however, suggests previous figures overestimated possible revenue. A second example of poor policy and a huge giveaway to oil and gas companies is the royalty holiday for oil and gas drilling in the Outer Continental Shelf. Oil and gas companies lease drilling rights in the Gulf of Mexico from the Federal Government. Companies pay for the leases and must also pay royalties on their production because the oil and gas is a public resource. The reconciliation bill contains a provision that would give companies a holiday from paying those royalties. Because the leases will be considered more valuable by companies if they don't have to pay royalties on the production, the CBO says that the Government will be able to sell the leases at a higher price and thus the royalty holiday will make money. That is all smoke and mirrors. Friends of the oil and gas industry in Congress have taken advantage of the fact that the budget process looks only at whether provisions make money in the first 7 years. The royalty holiday is expected to save the Federal Government $130 million in the first 7 years. This short-term savings allows us to say that we have taken a step toward balancing the budget. But when the short-term election year politicking ends, the other shoe will drop and it will drop hard. In the long-term, the Congressional Budget Office estimates that this royalty holiday will cost $550 million in lost receipts over 25 years. Thus, while the royalty holiday means short-term gain, it also means long-term pain. The royalty holiday is a clear example of corporate welfare at the expense of the Federal budget. In these times of belt-tightening and difficult choices about priorities, we can and must do better. Some have said that the royalty holiday is needed to help persuade an ailing industry to take part in a risky venture. However, an article in the October 24, 1995, Wall Street Journal reports that oil companies, ``* * * registered robust third-quarter earnings,'' and ``* * * reported a surprising gush of profits.'' Further, an October 30 Business Week article states that new technologies, ``* * * cut the cost of deep-sea production.'' I cannot stand by and watch the destruction of safety nets that protect our elderly, our children, and our most needy while at the same time providing a huge giveaway for an industry that just doesn't need it. The provisions I have mentioned are but two examples of the incredibly irresponsible environmental policy in this reconciliation bill. Our natural resources are among the most important things we can leave to these future generations. Our children and our grandchildren deserve more than what this bad energy policy, bad environmental policy, and shortsighted politicking would leave them. I will continue to speak for all Minnesotans, for their sense of fairness and equity and for their love and concern for the environment. I urge my colleagues to join me. [[Page S 17294]]

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Which will require only a very brief answer. My question to the minority leader is as follows: Is the Senator aware that right now some of these programs, like the Low-Income Energy Assistance Program, which my colleague from Pennsylvania has been a very strong advocate for, the funding is not getting out to the cold weather States, and for those States this is an issue right now? [[Page S 17121]] Is the Senator aware that on this continuing resolution, as my colleague from Michigan just stated, we are talking about only 60- percent funding of a very minimum amount nationwide? And, finally, is the Senator aware--can I please put this in human terms--that as a matter of fact, if we keep this up here, there are people who could go cold and freeze to death? That could happen. Is the Senator aware of that? That is not melodramatic. Is the Senator aware that that could happen?

Mr. WELLSTONE. Can I ask the Senator a brief question?

Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank my colleague.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. WELLSTONE. I have tremendous respect for the Senator and I want to ask one thing. There are a number of us here who are anxious to be part of the debate. Will the Senator hold the floor longer, or is there an opportunity to have this debate, I think many of us would like to have?

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I voted earlier today for a clean continuing resolution, which simply extended current funding for a couple of weeks, to open up the Government and allow for budget negotiations to move forward. A simple, clean extension of Federal funding, without all the ideological bells and whistles attached, should have sailed through this place and would have been signed by the President lickety split. But that effort failed. I intend to vote for the pending Daschle substitute amendment as well, because it is a significant improvement over the Republican version, which would have harsh consequences for a host of federal efforts to protect children, the vulnerable elderly, and other Americans who have been caught in the middle of this unnecessary budget showdown. Now that the earlier clean continuing resolution has failed, this substitute is the surest, quickest, fairest way remaining to get the Federal Government up and running, and to ensure that Federal parks are opened, Social Security applications are again taken, Veterans and other benefit checks are sent out, passport offices are opened, FBI law enforcement training is renewed, and other key Federal functions are being performed. This Daschle substitute provides for additional interim funding at a rate of 90 percent for a host of Federal programs that were wiped out altogether by House versions of appropriations bills, and that would otherwise suffer cuts of 40 percent in the Republican version of this bill. These include the Low Income Energy Assistance Program [LIHEAP], education for disadvantaged kids, Goals 2000, Safe and Drug-Free School efforts, regional economic development programs, homeless assistance, and many others. I don't know about other Senators, but energy assistance in my State has completely run out of money, and people are getting their fuel shut off across my state. This is a real crisis, Mr. President, which I described in greater detail earlier this week on the Senate floor. This substitute will help bring an end to this energy assistance crisis. The substitute also embodies other important principles for which we have fought. For example, it provides that Medicare and Medicaid savings are not to be used to pay for tax cuts. It provides that should any tax cuts be included in a final budget agreement, they should only go to families with incomes under $100,000. While I have opposed broad- based tax cuts before we get the budget into balance, I believe that this provision moves us in the right direction, and will help to ensure that massive Medicare cuts made by the Republicans will not be used to pay for tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans. Finally, it sets a deadline of December 22, which gives us more time to get our work done: to send to the President the numerous appropriations bills which have been stuck for months in Congress, and to send them to him in a form that he can sign into law. There is a provision in this substitute that, while it does not have the force of law, suggests that Congress should enact a balanced budget by the year 2002. I have consistently opposed this, observing that since it took us 15 years to get into this mess, starting with the massive Reagan tax cuts and defense build-up of the early 1980's, it will take us more than 7 years to get out of it. The President has also opposed this date, observing rightly that the spending cuts it would require in Medicare, Medicaid, and other areas would be draconian and irresponsible, and would likely destabilize the economy. I agree. I do not believe that we can get there by 2002 without excessive cuts in Medicare, Medicaid, education, job training, poverty programs, and other key Federal investments in the character, skills, health, and educational opportunities of American families. And we certainly can't do it by then if a majority of my colleagues continue to refuse to scale back defense spending and corporate welfare. But it is true that we must eventually get to balance, and I believe that we can do it; it's just that it will take us 2 or 3 years more than this suggests. Mr. President, most of us acknowledge that we are here today, in the midst of a Government shutdown, for one major reason: Congress has failed to do its job. Let's do our job tonight, and get this substitute passed and on to the President for his signature. We have so far been able to move only a few appropriations bills to the President this year, and even many of those Republicans in Congress knew would be vetoed. Let us for a change keep the interests of the American people in mind, get this substitute bill signed into law, and then begin a full and robust debate on the real budget, which slashes Medicare and Medicaid in order to pay for massive tax breaks for Americans wealthiest citizens, starting tomorrow. I look forward to that debate. I do not believe the extremist proposals put forward by Speaker Gingrich and his band of merry followers in the House are America's priorities. I do not believe similar proposals contained in the Senate-passed version of the budget bill were America's priorities. I believe this debate, and the elections next year, will bear that out. I yield the floor.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Maimon Cohen, who is a fellow working with me, be allowed to be on the floor for the duration of the debate on this amendment.

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

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. I yield the floor.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I yield 2 minutes and 20 seconds back to the Senator from Massachusetts when he brings this motion out.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, let me just talk about one provision in this motion to instruct conferees that Senator Kennedy is going to be making. This is a provision that I worked on, which essentially says that the Congress shall be instructed to delete provisions that provide greater or lesser Medicaid spending in States based upon the votes needed for the passage of the legislation rather than the needs of the people in those States. What I am essentially saying here is that what happened a couple of weeks ago in the dark of night was that the U.S. Senate exchanged Medicaid money for votes. What I am saying in this provision in this instruction to the conferees is that when we develop a formula for allocating Medicaid--or what we call in Minnesota medical assistance funds--it ought to be based upon some rational policy choice. It ought to be based upon the needs of the people in the States. It ought not to be based on some kind of a deal which is all based upon the number of votes to pass a particular piece of legislation. From my State, on this Friday night in about 3 hours we went from seeing a cut of $2.4 billion to a cut of $2.9 billion. In other words, the State of Minnesota lost $500 million. Mr. President, we need to understand that in the State of Minnesota altogether the projected cuts on Medicare and medical assistance are going to be somewhere between $7 billion and $8 billion. So the concern that I have--and the reason that I am working with Senator Kennedy on this, and so much appreciate his instruction to conferees--it seems to me that it is outrageous for the U.S. Senate to make decisions on allocation of medical assistance funds to States based upon some sort of [[Page S 16980]] wheeling and dealing that takes place where Senators leverage the votes for the amount of money that goes to their States as opposed to some kind of rational policy, and as opposed to the needs of the people in those States. I am also out here as an advocate for my State of Minnesota. In the dark of night in 3 hours, all of a sudden Minnesota has $500 million less of support. Mr. President, let me now translate this, if I can, in human terms, in personal terms. Let me first of all just say to my colleagues that I am concerned about this because it is not just some dry formula. We are talking about 300,000 children in the State of Minnesota that are covered by medical assistance. With the kind of reductions that we are going to be faced with--about $2.9 billion--the question becomes, What happens to those children? Mr. President, in the State of Minnesota we have a program called the TEFRA Program, which is extremely important, that allows 300,000 children with severe disabilities to be eligible for Medicaid based upon their own income and which allows families, therefore, to be able to keep those children at home. Mr. President, the question becomes what happens to those children with disabilities and those families that provide tender loving care to those children with disabilities when we have these kind of draconian reductions in medical assistance? That is why I have some indignation about some dark-of-the-night decision that takes $500 million more away from my State of Minnesota. But it is not just my State. It is some of the most vulnerable citizens in America. Mr. President, 60 percent of our medical assistance funds--that is what we call it in Minnesota; we are talking about Medicaid nationally--will go to pay for nursing home care. About two-thirds of all of the seniors that are in nursing homes in Minnesota rely on some medical assistance funds. Mr. President, I am a huge advocate of home-based care. I think people should be able to live at home in as near a normal circumstance as possible with dignity. But sometimes the nursing home is the home away from home, and the question becomes what in the world are we going to do as caregivers who care about taking care of elderly people? What is going to happen to senior citizens that are in those nursing homes? Who is going to make up the difference? Mr. President, all too often in my State of Minnesota--and I am guessing it is the same way in Louisiana or Michigan--I am hearing at the county level commissioners say to me: Senator, what is going to happen is we are going to be asked to raise the property taxes, and we are not going to be able to do so. And if we are not going to be able to do so, we are going to redefine eligibility; we are going to reduce services, and there are going to be a lot of persons who will be hurt. Above and beyond that, there are some 70,000 senior citizens in Minnesota who are below the poverty level, and for those senior citizens the medical assistance funds are what enable them to pay their part B premium for Medicare, which is the physician services. So again the question becomes, why does the U.S. Senate make decisions based on wheeling and dealing to get votes, not based upon the needs of citizens in our States? Why a medical assistance formula in the dark of night which is so patently unfair to so many States, including my State of Minnesota? And above and beyond my State and above and beyond the formula the real issue is, what about the impact on the people? I have said 10 times in this Chamber that this is a rush to recklessness. I will say it an 11th time. This is not good policy. It does not pay attention to the impact it is going to have on people's lives. This instruction to conferees which relates to this formula is extremely important. I conclude by repeating it one more time. Our instruction is to delete any provisions that provide a greater or lesser Medicaid spending in States based upon the votes needed for the passage of legislation rather than the needs of the people in those States. Without apology, without equivocation, I am proud to advocate it for citizens in my State of Minnesota. It is not just the seniors. It is not just the children. It is not just people with disabilities. It is also a State that values good health care. We want support for our medical education. We want our rural hospitals that depend so much on the Medicare and Medicaid patient payment mix to be able to continue to provide care. We want to be able to deliver primary care out in the communities. This budget that has been worked out is not based upon any kind of understanding of health care policy that will respond to people's needs in Minnesota or Iowa or any other State. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?