Paul Wellstone

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Chair. I thank the Senator from Massachusetts for his graciousness. Mr. President, while I agree with the underlying premise of this job training bill to consolidate and streamline--and I simply say to the Senator from Kansas and the Senator from Massachusetts, I deeply appreciate this bipartisan effort--I believe that repealing key elements of the Trade Adjustment Assistance Program in the process, as this bill does, is a serious mistake. Mr. President, from January 1, 1993, to August 31 of this year, more than 2,300 Minnesota workers have received TAA. That assistance has taken the form of about $4.5 million in training funds--job search and educational assistance--and about $6.8 million in income support. Let me just be very direct about it. I did not support NAFTA even with the TAA as a part of it. I opposed NAFTA and GATT, and the view I took then and the view I take now is it is far better to raise wages and living standards and environmental protection through international agreements than depress those standards. I argued that GATT and NAFTA failed to meet these tests, and many of my predictions about NAFTA's adverse impact on American workers have come to pass. American jobs have been shipped to Mexico and workers have been left to fend for themselves. This bill in present form without this amendment--and, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be an original cosponsor of this amendment-- --

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I rise to support the Pell-Jeffords amendment. I am proud to be an original cosponsor. Mr. President, the Minnesota Literacy Council issued a study earlier this year, and I quote: Minnesota adult basic education has had a profound and multidimensional impact on individual learners and on the quality of life in Minnesota. I was a teacher for 20 years, and I have spoken on the floor before and I have made the argument, and I think the evidence is irrefutable and irreducible--not because I make the argument, but nevertheless I think the evidence is very strong--that there is a very strong correlation between the education of a mother or a father, or both, and certainly whether or not a mother or father are literate, and what they can do by way of encouraging their children to learn in school. So, this is really, if you will, an important family issue. Also, there is a tremendous multiplier effect that comes with adult basic education, which is why I thank my colleagues for their effort. To the extent a man or woman is literate, he or she not only can do better with their children, not only can do better at work, but also can more fully participate in the economic and the social and the political life of our Nation. In other words, this is critical to a functioning democracy. Adult basic education programs work. I have seen that in Minnesota, over and over and over again, traveling around the State and working with people who are in adult education. In 1993, more than 36,000 people received adult basic education services free of charge at over 600 sites statewide. Of these, 63 percent obtained a high school diploma, GED, gained citizenship, secured employment or job advancement, or got off public assistance. So it is enormously important in my State. Nationally, there was a recent article, and I think I heard the Senator from Vermont refer to this, in the Washington Post, which reported that about 90 percent of the Fortune 1,000 executives say illiteracy is hurting productivity and profitability, and it costs the United States, roughly speaking, $225 billion a year in lost productivity. So it seems to me this is really very much, if you will, a national security issue. It is a national commitment, and that is why I support this important focus on adult education. As the Senator from Vermont pointed out, my State is ranked as one of the best States in terms of literacy rates. According to the Minnesota Literacy Council, about 20 percent, however, of Minnesotans, are functionally illiterate. According to the 1990 census, in Minnesota approximately 18 percent, or 445,000, aged 25 and over, do not have a high school diploma. If you add to that those between 18 and 25, the number of people without a high school diploma or GED would go up to about 560,000. So, again, it seems to me, this amendment is extremely important. It puts the focus on the education that is vitally important to adults, vitally important to their children, vitally important to families, vitally important to democracy, vitally important to job productivity, and I would argue in a State that has been the leader in the Nation, as my State so often is--if I can say that on the floor of the Senate--vitally important to Minnesota. I yield the floor and I thank my colleague from Kansas for her graciousness.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Kansas. Five minutes would certainly suffice.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Would exacerbate the problem. It is sometimes necessary to remind ourselves of promises made. Proponents of NAFTA, for example, promised it would boost exports to Mexico and create hundreds of thousands of new American jobs almost immediately. Instead, 21 months after implementation of NAFTA, our trade balance with Mexico has dramatically worsened. Our trade deficit with Mexico for the first 6 months of this year was $8.5 billion. Furthermore, according to the Department of Labor, 42,000 Americans are certified to have lost their jobs as a result of NAFTA. And as an article in yesterday's New York Times observed, [[Page S 14857]] this number is undoubtedly lower than the actual numbers of jobs lost to NAFTA--that is, for a variety of reasons, not all workers eligible did apply. What about the American companies that assured us during the NAFTA debate that many new American jobs would be created by the agreement? Public Citizen conducted a useful survey of a number of these firms. Public Citizen's report found that of 66 firms which had made explicit job-creating promises or projections and which replied to Public Citizen's inquiries, 89 percent reported making no significant progress toward meeting these projections. Twenty months after NAFTA, Public Citizen also was able to contact five companies from my State of Minnesota. Officials from each one of these companies had made explicit projections or promises of economic benefits to Minnesotans from NAFTA. Unfortunately, after 20 months of NAFTA, none could report creating new jobs in Minnesota or even increased exports from Minnesota as a result of the agreement. It seems to me a promise is a promise, and we must live up to our commitment. I think NAFTA was a profound mistake. I think GATT was a profound mistake. But the TAA as a part of NAFTA was supposed to help those workers gain new skills and obtain new jobs in the local economies because these workers are the ones who are rocked by some of these agreements and some of what has happened in the global economy. The increasing globalization of our economy makes a lot of U.S. workers feel that the forces that directly affect our standard of living and the quality of our lives are moving further and further from our control and from accountability to us. It seems that local, State and national governments are increasingly powerless to solve our most pressing problems. And I am afraid that this trend only makes citizens more alienated from and distrustful of their governments. Without this amendment, this bill would heighten this sense of alienation from their government that American workers feel. Repealing TAA would betray the commitments we made here in Congress to provide even modest job retraining and other benefits to sustain dislocated workers through a difficult transition period to another job. Even the House version of the job training bill which recently passed did not repeal TAA. The Importance of Trade Adjustment Assistance Let me describe why I think this job retraining funding commitment is so important, and how it works in practical terms. Under the Trade Adjustment Assistance Program [TAA] and the special NAFTA/TAA program enacted when NAFTA was passed 2 years ago, workers who meet certain eligibility requirements and are certified as having lost their jobs because of competition from imported goods are eligible for special assistance. This assistance includes: First, income support consisting of up to 52 weeks of extended unemployment benefits beyond the 26 weeks a worker would normally be entitled to under most State unemployment laws; and second, employment and retraining services; The income support portion of these programs is an entitlement. A worker who meets the eligibility requirements is entitled to the extended unemployment benefits, provided that the worker is enrolled in training. Employment and training services are provided through a capped entitlement--that is, funds are appropriated for these services, and eligible workers are entitled to receive them as long as funds are available. This bill repeals the sections of TAA and the NAFTA/TAA program that give eligible workers a capped entitlement to employment and training services. Eliminating the entitlement to these services means that these workers will have to compete with all other job seekers for whatever employment and training services may be available in their State. At the same time, the bill substantially cuts Federal job training programs overall, thereby prompting an intense competition for diminishing funding among the various groups of workers who need to be retrained--whatever the reason for their displacement. Repealing these provisions fundamentally breaks faith with a commitment first made by President Kennedy in the Trade Expansion Act 1962--and renewed again when Congress passed the NAFTA/TAA program-- that workers adversely affected by our trade policies would receive special assistance from the Government to find new employment. Mr. President, since the TAA program was established, Democrats and Republicans alike have recognized our special responsibility to workers who lose the jobs as a direct result of Government trade policies. The Senate reaffirmed its commitment to honor that responsibility when it enacted the NAFTA/TAA program for workers displaced because of increased imports or shifts in production to Mexico and Canada. We must not renege on that commitment now. Even under the current JTPA Dislocated Worker Program, there is not enough money to serve more than about 25 percent of eligible workers. Under the Kassebaum bill, there is no requirement that a State spend any particular portion of the Federal funds it receives to serve dislocated workers. Moreover, while States are required to offer job search and job placement services through their one-stop centers, there is no requirement in the bill that States actually provide job training to anyone. If trade-impacted workers are no longer entitled to employment and training services, there is a good chance that in some States many will not get them. They will be out of luck. This amendment preserves the employment and training portions of the TAA and NAFTA/TAA programs as a capped entitlement. This is part of a social contract that we made with working men and women when we asked them to support our efforts to open world markets and eliminate trade barriers. I believe we have an obligation to honor that contract. At the Labor and Human Resources Committee markup on this bill, Senator Kennedy offered an amendment similar to this one which preserved the right of trade-impacted workers to obtain retraining services, but required that all such services be provided through the same systems established by the State to serve other dislocated workers. Unfortunately, this amendment was defeated on a tie 8-to-8 vote. I hope that we will get a different result on this vote. American workers deserve better. So I thank the Senator from New York for his amendment. I thank the Senator from Delaware. I thank him for their leadership. I am proud to be an original cosponsor, if that is appropriate, and I yield the floor.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Senator, and I further note that, with the increased funding in the bill for salaries and expenses, a more adequate amount should be available for Microloan Technical Assistance grants that was envisioned when the Committee wrote its report, and that the amount should be increased commensurate with the new funding in the bill for salaries and expenses to ensure that the crucial technical assistance portion of the Microloan program is adequately funded. I note that every hearing we have conducted in the Small Business Committee concerning the Microloan program has emphasized the importance of technical assistance.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I would like to clarify a matter regarding the Hatfield amendment number 2814 that passed by voice vote. The amendment contained a total of $30,000,000 in additional funds for the Small Business Administration. Am I correct in my understanding that this amount includes approximately $15 million for the administration of business loan programs, $1 million for direct loans in the Microloan Program, and nearly $14 million for salaries and expenses.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, as a member of the Small Business Committee, I thank the managers and Chairman Hatfield for improving the Small Business Administration portion of this bill. I would like to talk briefly about the SBA Microloan Program. The Microloan Program has been a remarkable success in its short existence. It was the first small-business bill I cosponsored when I got to the Senate, and I am very proud to have worked on it with Senator Bumpers, who authored the legislation, from the beginning. As a member of the Senate Small Business Committee, and in the course of a number of visits with program participants in Minnesota, I have been extremely impressed by the first-hand accounts I have heard. The program is working, and the owners of the very small businesses which are its beneficiaries in many cases have absolutely inspiring stories to tell. SBA's Microloan Program assists women, low-income, and minority small business owners with very small loans--loans averaging just over $10,000. These are generally very small businesses, and they are very small loans. In many cases, these loans actually have helped individuals to leave welfare, to start their own small businesses, and to make a full economic [[Page S 14696]] contribution to their communities. I am sure that many of my colleagues have heard from or visited with participants in this program from their States. In my State of Minnesota, for example, we have four intermediary lending organizations making small loans to small businesses and providing technical assistance. The Northeast Entrepreneur Fund of Virginia, MN, has made approximately $218,000 in loans to 56 very small entrepreneurs. That's an average loan size of less than $4,000. In many cases, that's all people need to get on their feet, to start or expand their very small business and allow it to succeed. The Northwest Minnesota Initiative Fund in Bemidji, MN, assists mainly rural small businesses. Average loan size is just over $5,000, and the default rate is about 10 percent. Staff from the initiative fund point out that their default rate would be even lower, but in many cases they provide technical assistance to the point where the small business clients can get bank financing. The fund then ends up financing some of the riskier operations. Still, the program has helped start 56 new businesses, with a success rate of about 90 percent. Women Venture of St. Paul, MN, was one of the models for this legislation. They have made loans to 55 small businesses in the amount of $581,000. Eighty-seven percent of the businesses served by Women Venture are owned by women. Twenty-five percent are owned by people of color. Finally, the Minneapolis Consortium of Community Developers has helped 32 very small businesses with loans in amounts ranging from $4,000 to $25,000. I have visited with some of these business owners in their places of business. It is a remarkable program. Staff from the consortium have pointed out to me that they provide an average of about 26 hours of technical assistance to each small business client. I would like at this time to enter into a colloquy with a number of my colleagues concerning the Microloan Program.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, in the letter, I observed that LIHEAP is a highly targeted, cost-effective way to help 5.6 million very low- income American families--or roughly 15 million individuals--to pay their energy bills. More than two-thirds of LIHEAP households have annual incomes less than $8000; more than one-half have incomes below $6000. Further, the average LIHEAP recipients spend 18.4 percent of their income on energy, compared with 6.7 percent for all households. I pointed out that Minnesota is the third coldest State, in terms of heating degree days, in the country, after Alaska and North Dakota. Especially in cold-weather states like Minnesota and Oregon, funding for LIHEAP is critical to families with children and vulnerable low- income elderly persons, who without it could be forced to choose between food and heat. The LIHEAP program assists approximately 110,000 households in Minnesota, and provides an average energy assistance benefit of about $360 per heating season. In Minnesota, where the first snows have fallen in some parts of the State, that heating season is already underway, and many people are relying on this funding. While I believe that more should have been released, considering the unique nature of LIHEAP which historically releases the bulk of its funds to cold- weather States immediately in October, I am pleased that at least some of these funds--about $140 million--will be made available immediately on Monday to help pay fuel bills, fix or replace furnaces on an emergency basis, and help with weatherization against the coming winter. While final funding levels for LIHEAP for this winter and next will likely have to be settled on the Senate floor, and in a conference committee, interim funding for the first part of this winter will be made available on October 1 to avoid large numbers of utility shut-offs and other heating emergencies that could have resulted in serious heating-related tragedies, including the deaths of people in cold- weather areas whose furnaces fail and who are unable to get them repaired or replaced, or other serious problems for those who are unable to pay for the heating season's first fill of fuel without LIHEAP assistance, or who are otherwise placed at risk by this provision. Mr. President, this is a compromise bill. It does not provide for adequate funding levels for all Federal programs. But in general it applies its spending formulas in a way that is fair and responsible, and I urge its prompt enactment. exhibit 1 September 26, 1995. Hon. Mark Hatfield, Chairman, Committee on Appropriations, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Chairman: I write to urge you to drop from the continuing resolution that is being prepared for likely Senate floor consideration later this week the provision that would prohibit all federal Low-Income Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) funds from being released until enactment of the FY 1996 Labor-HHS Appropriations bill, which could be delayed until late November. In my view, it is outrageous that recipients of energy assistance are being singled out, among those who are helped by all programs of the federal government, for this special funding restriction. I hope you will agree that isolating for especially harsh treatment families with children and vulnerable low-income elderly persons, who without LIHEAP assistance early this winter could be forced to choose between food and heat, is deeply unfair, arbitrary, and even mean-spirited, and should be opposed. It is especially troubling that such an important decision could be made without a single hearing, or even a public indication of the Committee's intentions. As you know, the huge reductions in this winter's LIHEAP funding (approximately 25 percent) contained in the recently- enacted rescissions bill was one of the main reasons I insisted on an opportunity to try to amend the bill to restore LIHEAP funding on the floor. Though that effort was unsuccessful, I believe it showed the substantial support which exits within the Senate for the program, and for its goal of providing critical energy assistance to qualified recipients. While final LIHEAP funding levels will likely have to be debated on the Senate and House floors, and again in conference, interim funding for early this winter must be made available on October 1 to avoid large numbers of utility shut-offs and other heating emergencies that could result in serious tragedies. These could include the deaths of people in cold-weather areas whose furnaces fail and who are unable to get them repaired or replaced, or other serious problems for those who are unable to pay for the heating season's first fill of fuel without LIHEAP assistance, or who are otherwise placed at risk by this provision. LIHEAP is a highly targeted, cost-effective way to help 5.6 million very low-income American families--or roughly 15 million individuals--to pay their energy bills. As the Committee's report on the rescissions bill observed, more than two-thirds of LIHEAP households have annual incomes less than $8000; more than one-half have incomes below $6000. Further, the average LIHEAP recipients spend 18.4 percent of their income on energy, compared with 6.7 percent for all households. Minnesota is the third coldest state, in terms of heating degree days, in the country, after Alaska and North Dakota. Especially in cold-weather states like Minnesota and Oregon, funding for LIHEAP is critical to families with children and vulnerable low-income elderly persons, who without it could be forced to choose between food and heat. The LIHEAP program assists approximately 110,000 households in Minnesota, and provides an average energy assistance benefit of about $360 per heating season. In Minnesota, where the first snows have fallen in some parts of the state, that heating season is already underway, and many people are expecting this funding to be released, as long scheduled, on October 1. This proposal to arbitrarily prohibit distribution of all LIHEAP funds to the states on October 1 could wreak havoc in the lives of eligible vulnerable elderly, families with children, and other low-income people in my state and across the nation. I urge you in the strongest terms to reject it. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Paul David Wellstone, U.S. Senate.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I rise in support of House Joint Resolution 108, the continuing resolution. I am pleased that Congress and the President, after long negotiations, were able to work out this agreement that would provide interim levels of funding for programs and activities of the Federal Government until November 13, 1995. I understand the President will sign this bill. Its expected enactment over the weekend will avert a massive shutdown of the Federal Government, and all of the many costly problems that would cause for people in my State and throughout the Nation who depend on the Federal Government for Social Security, Medicare, student loans, farm payments, and other benefits and services--and for Federal workers who might otherwise have been furloughed for an extended period starting as early as next week. I expect that the administration will exercise its spending authority to avoid furloughs that is provided for in this bill. I am also pleased that at my urging, working with White House Chief of Staff Leon Panetta, the Appropriations Committee removed the outrageously unfair and arbitrary provision in the bill which would have prohibited any Low-Income Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) funding to be distributed to the States. Several days ago, I alerted Appropriations Committee Chairman Hatfield to my concerns about this matter in a letter, a copy of which I ask be printed in the Record following my statement.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, I agree with my colleague from Maine, Senator Cohen. Mr. President, what is at issue here, when all is said and done, is whether or not we as a nation are going to support the idea that each and every person, regardless of their income, is going to receive equal protection under the law. That is really what having a Legal Services Corporation is all about. Ensuring that people are treated equally under the law. Not just the wealthy but, everyone. Mr. President, this is in the very best of the tradition of our country. Speaking for Minnesotans, this is the Minnesota ethic. Minnesotans believe in equal protection under the law. Minnesotans believe that regardless of a person's station in life he or she should be entitled to representation in our court system. Mr. President, I will reluctantly support the Domenici amendment. To do otherwise is to have a proposal that will essentially eliminate what I would call the heart and soul and integrity of the Legal Services in the United States of America. In that sense, I believe Senator Domenici has made an enormous contribution. But I have some serious misgivings about the Domenici amendment albeit, I admire what the Senator from New Mexico is trying to accomplish. I believe he has made a real contribution toward fairness in our country through his amendment. But by the same token, this is a very steep price we will pay for rescuing Legal Services. There is a price for agreeing to the restrictions in the Domenici amendment. Mr. President, we had this debate before in this Chamber last Congress. A debate that I was very active in. It was a debate with my colleague from Texas, as a matter of fact. When you have a restriction that says you are going to have a prohibition on welfare reform litigation, then I would ask the following question: Has this just become a kind of mean season on the poor of this country? Mr. President, we are talking about children. The most vulnerable members of our society. Not too long ago we made a profound mistake in agreeing to the so-called welfare reform measure that passed this body. At that time, I think Senator Moynihan said it better than anyone. He essentially said that for the first time in over a half a century, we as the U.S. Senate, will say there will be no floor beneath which children could fall. Mr. President, you and I have had a debate on this issue. It has been an honest difference of opinion. But if we are going to say that, and we are also going to say there is no kind of national community commitment, no sort of obligation, responsibility or standard in relation to nutrition, in relation to making sure that every child at least has an adequate diet, that in and of itself I think is a turning back of the clock, away from the very best of this country, because I think it will be more children are going to go hungry and more children are going to be impoverished. Now what we have is a restriction that says in addition to no national standard, no floor, there will be restrictions on Legal Services lawyers who rightfully want to challenge any of the laws or practices that are called welfare reform. How can we argue that Legal Services lawyers will not be able to issue any challenges when we do not know exactly what is going to happen back [[Page S 14604]] in the States and back at the county level. There are all kinds of examples. Suppose, for example--I had an amendment which dealt with the whole issue of domestic violence--you have a woman who has been battered. Imagine what it would be like if you had been battered steadily for 2 years. You have two small children, and you are told you go into a work program or you lose your assistance. Suppose she could not because she had not healed; she is not ready to work physically or mentally. Under these draconian restrictions a woman would not be able to receive Legal Services representation to challenge this particular restriction. Where is the fairness in that? Is this just? I submit to my esteemed colleagues, that this is not justice and it is not fair. Mr. President, this strikes me as just being a mean season on the poor. Senator Domenici has made a real contribution because he is attempting to make sure we do not pass any extreme proposals, which is I believe the Gramm proposal is about. But these restrictions trouble me, and these restrictions should not be the price people pay to receive the most basic legal representation to protect their rights. I hope that when it comes to authorization we will have a debate, and we will be able to come up with constrictive solutions to some of these problems. Mr. President, what happens if a mother is told she has to work but because of a prior work experience she has a bad back? People quite often think it is an excuse--she has a herniated disk, and she cannot do the kind of physical work she used to do. She says I can no longer perform this type of work, or there is no one to take care of my small children, and she might be cut off. She has no legal representation? What happens if we go back to what used to be the man-in-the-house rule, and it is decided at the county level that a woman who is single now, has been through a divorce, and a male friend visits her one day, and somebody is there from the welfare department who determines she should be cut off because there is a man in her house that can support her. Will she have legal representation to challenge this kind of determination? No. I do not know how we can have this kind of restriction when we do not even know how it is going to be at the State and local level. What if it is repressive? What if it is harsh? What if it is degrading? What if it violates the Constitution of the United States of America? Are we saying a whole group of citizens, which, by the way, are women and children, are not going to have legal representation? Mr. President, the Gramm proposal goes beyond the goodness of America. The Gramm proposal to essentially gut legal services goes beyond the goodness of Minnesota. I believe the Gramm proposal will be voted down. I think the Domenici amendment will pass, and it should because the whole idea of equal protection under the law is an idea that fires the imagination of Americans. This about basic fairness and justice. What I worry about as I look at these restrictions, whether it be welfare or whether it be a broad definition of lobbying, or whether it be advocacy or no class action lawsuits, is that I believe we are heading in the wrong direction because ultimately what this debate is about--is about power and powerlessness in America. And if you are going to say that, yes, there will be funding for Legal Services but we will so severely restrict what you can do that those who are powerless do not have the ability to challenge some of the powerful institutions in America, then we just deepen all of the inequalities. Hospitals are supposed to take care of sick people. Welfare agencies are supposed to be concerned about the welfare of the people they serve. Schools are supposed to educate children, all children. Housing agencies are supposed to be concerned about housing, housing for all people. It is written somewhere that just because you are poor, you do not get adequate representation. Are we now saying that a whole group of citizens in America, disproportionately women, disproportionately children, are no longer going to have access to lawyers who can challenge some of those discriminatory policies? I will tell you what this is going to do, Mr. President. It is going to breed contempt for our legal system among the very citizens we do not want to see have that contempt. We have young people who are growing up in communities across our country, in more brutal circumstances and conditions than any of us want to admit. I think the Senator from Hawaii, [Mr. Inouye], has probably been the champion for people in Indian country. He knows their condition better than maybe any other Senators here. If we have young people growing up in more brutal circumstances than any of us want to face up to, and we are now going to severely restrict what Legal Services lawyers can do, we are just going to breed contempt on the part of those young people in this system. They are going to see no way that they can seek redress of grievances through our system; they are going to see a legal system they are not going to believe in; they are going to see a political system they are not going to believe in; they are going to see a nation that they believe betrays the very idea of equal justice under the law. Where do you think that is going to take us? When young people growing up in poverty, growing up in impoverished communities, growing up under brutal circumstances do not see any way through the legal system that they can seek redress of grievances, do not see a system through which there is an opportunity for them working within our system in a nonviolent way to improve their lives, it creates an enormous vacuum. I will tell you what fills that vacuum. I have been to a lot of these communities. What fills that vacuum is the politics of despair, the politics of cynicism, and all too often the politics of hatred. Mr. President, the Gramm approach is to extreme; it goes too far. What the Senator from Texas has done is to belie the best of America. Senator Domenici is right with his amendment. But as to the restrictions in the Domenici amendment, I hope later on as we move forward on legal services, we will be able to have a good discussion and we will be able to make the kinds of changes that will provide poor people in America with strong legal representation. Just because you are poor does not mean you should not be able to challenge those who have the power in America. Just because you are poor or just because you are living in a poor community or just because you are a whole community that is denied a voice or just because you are a whole community that does not have the power, does not mean you should not be entitled to some legal services lawyers that can work with you. It should not mean you cannot be entitled to challenge the policies and practices that discriminate against your families, that hold your families down, that lead to inadequate housing, that lead to your children not having an adequate education, that lead to health care institutions that sometimes do not take care of you. You should be able to challenge those policies and practices. You should be able to challenge those institutions. That is the best of America. That is equal justice under the law. With these restrictions, that is not going to happen. So, Mr. President, to conclude, I will not cosponsor the Domenici amendment because of the restrictions, but I certainly will vote for it. I think the Senator from New Mexico, my friend, is making a real contribution: A little more fairness, a little more justice, a little more compassion, a little bit more of what is right in America. My God, Mr. President is this the mean season on the poor? I hope when it comes to authorization, we will be able to look at these restrictions and we will be able to make the kinds of changes that will lead to legal services, and will provide people in this country, poor people, whether they live in urban America or rural America or suburban America, with equal protection under the law. That is what this amendment is all about. I yield the floor.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Reserving the right to object, and I shall not, what is the subject matter of the amendment?

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I rise in support of Senator Biden's amendment to restore full funding for the Violence Against Women Act. This amendment would restore $76 million to programs in the Violence Against Women Act--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, 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 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 Programs has no effect on the budget deficit and requires no new taxes. Now, I want my [[Page S 14510]] colleagues to clearly understand what this all means. Last year, as a country we 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 it should be. Last year, as part of the crime bill Congress passed the Violence Against Women Act, we made a bipartisan commitment to address domestic violence. But now, only a year later, we are considering a bill to cut funding for these programs. I must, at the same time, commend my colleagues on the Appropriation Subcommittee on Labor/HHS for their efforts and wisdom in more than fully funding the Violence Against Women Act Program under their jurisdiction. But 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 charged with lesser offenses. Violence Against Women Act programs must be fully funded. Anything less would result in a betrayal of the bipartisan promise Congress made. Domestic violence should be a priority for national crime- fighting efforts. But without adequate funding we cannot address this serious problem. We know all too well that it is the violence in the home that 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. Domestic violence is one of the most serious issues we face. It knows no boarders. Neither race, gender, geographic or economic status shields someone from domestic violence. As a matter of fact, next week my wife Sheila and I are sponsoring the display of 50 photographs by Donna Ferrato, an award winning photojournalist. These photographs provide powerful and graphic evidence of this crisis, and I invite my colleagues to view them, I am only disappointed that these photos could not be displayed while we debate this issue. Mr. President, nationwide, every 15 seconds a woman is beaten by a husband or boyfriend, over 4,000 women are killed every year by their abuser, and every 6 minutes a woman is forcibly raped. We know that the majority, 70 percent, of men who batter women also batter their children. Or children may be injured during an incident of parental battery. We also know that 25-45 percent of all women who are battered are battered during pregnancy. Battering during pregnancy is the most common cause of birth defects. Children are also scarred emotionally by witnessing the abuse of their mothers. They are traumatized by fear for their mother and their own helplessness in protecting her. They may blame themselves for not preventing the violence or even for causing it. This can manifest itself in aggression, sleeping disorders, or withdrawal. When a woman and her children are struggling to leave violent homes, they face many barriers. Many people ask why she does not leave? Often the response to this question is merely another question: why does he beat her? I feel that particular response ignores the realities of women's lives. One reason women do not leave is fear. If she leaves, he will find her and kill her. Batterers often threaten to harm or take the children away to force her to stay. Leaving him never guarantees safety for a woman or her children. In almost three-quarters of reported spouse assaults, the victim was divorced or separated at the time of the attack. Women are also dependent on the abusers for financial reasons. If they decide to leave, often they can not afford housing or food for themselves and children. Abusers also play on emotions to trap victims into staying. He will threaten to kill himself. This plays on many victims desires not for the marriage to end, just the violence. Domestic violence is a community issue. It is no longer an issue for women; it is an issue for all women, men, and children. Communities need to work together. It was the Violence Against Women Act that was intended not only to strengthen the laws concerning general violence, it was to provide some of the necessary resources to communities to address the violence in their own communities. It was intended to help law enforcement officers to make responsible arrests and understand the dynamics of domestic violence--to learn not ask her what she did to make him mad. It was to help train judges to treat domestic violence as a crime and hold the abusers accountable for the violence. How ironic it is that last year around this time we were celebrating the passage of the Violence Against Women Act. We were celebrating because, finally, the Federal Government had taken a very bold step to make the protection of women in their homes a top priority for this Nation. And now, 2 days before the beginning of Domestic Violence Awareness Month we are considering a bill that cuts the funding for these important programs. 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 loudly and clearly 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. Without full funding, Congress will turn its back on women and their families. And it will turn its back on communities that are struggling to deal with increasing crime. I urge my colleagues to support the Biden amendment.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I would like to thank both of my colleagues, the Senator from Delaware, and the Senator from Texas and, of course, the Senator from Oregon, Chairman Hatfield. I also see the Senator from Utah whom I think has been a real leader in this area. I am really pleased that we have come together in a bipartisan way on this issue. [[Page S 14508]] Mr. President, I could take a tremendous amount of time. But I think there are other Senators who want to make some brief comments on this as well. So let me just try to summarize several hours worth of what I would like to say on this issue. In my State of Minnesota I think a lot of people are lighting a candle in this area. The statistics nationally are really grim. I think the FBI statistics is something like every 15 seconds a woman is battered in our country. Mr. President, I think that we are taking this seriously now in a way that we have not before as a country, both as a crime and also in terms of the kind of things that we need to do to prevent it. Mr. President, I think what this Violence Against Women Act funding does--I am so pleased that we were able to go up from $100 million to $175 million, is it provides funds to communities who can make good and positive things happen. Mr. President, I think this is not bragging to say that Minnesota really is one of the leaders in the Nation--I think I would probably argue leader in the Nation. I think the general view that we have in my State is we are never going to be able to reduce the violence in our communities unless we are able to reduce the violence in our homes. It spills out into the streets. It spills out into the neighborhoods. It spills out into the community. I think the second view that we have in Minnesota--and I think it is a view around the country--is that, whereas, when I was a kid, if we knew something was wrong in another home, whether it be a woman who was battered or a child--sometimes a man, but unfortunately mainly women and children, not that I think it is good that men are battered--I think it is awful that so many women and children have to pay this price. I think now we have reached the conclusion, as opposed to a point in time when we said it was no one's business, I think we are now seeing it as everybody's business. This is the kind of problem that could be tackled at the community level. It is the kind of problem that could be tackled by the law enforcement community. It is the kind of problem that could be tackled by the clergy. It is the kind of problem that can be tackled by women and others who are down there in the trenches in the battered women's shelters. It is the kind of problem that can be tackled in our schools where children learn alternatives to violence as a way of solving disputes. We really think as a country we can take this problem on. I think this amendment which has been accepted by both sides is an extremely powerful, an extremely personal, and an extremely important message by the U.S. Senate that we are not going to back down from this national commitment. I am proud to be a cosponsor. I thank the Senator from Delaware for his very fine remarks. Several Senators addressed the Chair.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Biden amendment. I ask unanimous consent to be added as an original cosponsor. Included in this amendment is a provision to restore the Community Oriented Police Service Program and the local community crime prevention block grant and that is the part to which I would like to address my remarks. The bill the Senate is currently considering: (1) would dismantle the COPS program, (2) would combine the COPS program and the crime prevention block grant into one big block grant, and (3) would cut the funding for both. I believe this would, first of all, open the door to funding anything under the sun that a Governor determines is law enforcement or crime prevention. And, it effectively would eliminate all crime prevention from this crime bill that is now law. For when law enforcement is pitted against crime prevention efforts, law enforcement always wins. This, I say to my colleagues, turns the clock back on the commitment we made last year to help communities fighting as well as prevent crime. Last year Congress passed and the President signed the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994. A central part of the crime bill included money for the hiring, over 5 years, of 100,000 more police officers under the Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) Program. To date, under this program, more than 25,000 police officers have been hired--in Minnesota alone, 354 new cops have been funded. Importantly, each of these officers was 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, just a few weeks ago Attorney General Janet Reno announced a new effort at the Department of Justice to target some of these new cops on the beat to helping 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 front line 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, popular crime-fighting program is under attack by Republicans who want to convert its funding into a block grant. Unfortunately, the Republican 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 its 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 this 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. 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. Ultimately, we ended up with a crime bill that included a block grant to the States for prevention programs--the local community crime prevention [[Page S 14531]] block grant. And, funding was not even authorized until FY 96. We haven't even given it a chance to work and get into communities--one of the few provisions in the crime bill that was intended to prevent crime, one of the few provisions that was not funded until next year and some in Congress are trying to cut it off at the knees. The Biden amendment would restore the crime bill structure and ensure that some of the funds that were set aside as part of the Crime Control Trust Fund are spent on real prevention programs. The local crime prevention block grant, like the COPS Program, provides a lot of flexibility to the States and communities. Under this block grant, communities can determine what types, within a general list of about 14 different ideas, of prevention programs to fund, what prevention plans fit their community the best. But this block grant is for prevention, nothing else. Again, it is one of the few aspects of the crime bill that focuses on prevention, an essential element of any crime fighting effort. And, as I stated earlier, it has not even had a chance to be implemented. This coming year would be the first year funding will actually go to help communities. I cannot emphasize enough how important crime prevention is-- especially now. And, under this appropriation bill very little, if any, funding would go to prevent crime. If we were to listen to people in the communities that are most affected by the violence, they would say to us you have to have the money in prevention. But 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 they 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 bill 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. I urge my colleagues to support the Biden amendment. in defense of the cops program

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I want to just emphasize what the Senator from Delaware said, including being an original cosponsor to this amendment. I will wait. I am very pleased an agreement has been worked out. I will wait until the Senator from Delaware introduces his amendment. My understanding is we have a good agreement here. At that point in time I would like to talk about the importance of what we have done. So I just ask unanimous consent I be included as an original cosponsor.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I say to my colleague from New Mexico, I will just take a minute.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I will just take a moment, Mr. President.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Chair. I thank the Senator from Iowa. I would also like to thank my colleague from Massachusetts for his graciousness in letting me speak right now. He was first on the floor, and I appreciate him letting me have this opportunity. Mr. President, let me follow up on the words of the Senator from Iowa. Actually, not just President Bush has used such an Executive order but Roosevelt did, Truman did, Johnson did, Nixon did, and Bush has. It is unfortunate that this amendment is in this bill, and I rise to object to the amendment and I rise to object to our proceeding on this bill. We have had this debate before. We had a vote on this before, and I fully expect again today that we will have the vote against this amendment. Mr. President, what the Executive order says is the Federal Government will no longer purchase goods and services from firms which permanently replace their workers in response to a lawful strike. That is in the national and public interest because that has a lot to do with what kind of contractors produce what kind of quality work for this Nation. In addition, it is a basic standard of fairness. It has to do with on which side is the Federal Government. I cannot understand for the life of me why the opposition to this protection for working people in this country. The pattern is clear. It is a pattern in Iowa, in Minnesota, in Massachusetts, in all across the country, and it is a pattern of some companies. Thank goodness, a lot of companies are precisely the opposite in their modus operandi. A lot of companies understand that you want to have cooperation between employees and employers, that that is the way to have high morale; it is the way to have high levels of productivity. But in all too many cases, some of the bad apples force impossible concessions onto their work force, which means that people have wages on which they cannot support their families or they have to work under conditions that threaten their very health, their life, and their limb, and therefore what happens is the employees have no other choice but to go out on strike, which is precisely what the companies want them to do because when they go out on strike they permanently replace them. The right to strike, which is part of the leverage of working people in this country, which is part of their right to bargain collectively, has become the right to be fired. And so the President of the United States of America has said the Federal Government is going to be on the side of working people. We are not going to do business with businesses that force people out on strike and then permanently replace them. That is on the part of the President of the United States a positive and powerful message. The reason I feel so strongly and am absolutely opposed to our proceeding on this bill and hope this amendment will be removed has to do with the context of the times that we are living in, and the context is simple. The bottom 75 percent of the population feels the economic squeeze--low wages, wages that are not living wages, working people losing their bargaining power, more and more mergers, banks buying [[Page S 14441]] banks, pharmaceutical companies buying pharmaceutical companies, more concentration of power in the telecommunications industry, conglomerates dominating the economy. Where do regular people fit into this equation? Cutbacks in occupational health and safety protection, cuts in Medicare and Medicaid and health care, cuts in protection for children. It seems to me that somewhere in the equation working families, the majority of people of this country who do not own all the wealth and all the capital and who are not the big players and do not make all the big contributions ought to have some representation in the Senate. I believe the President of the United States has through this Executive order sent a positive and important message that he stands with working families. I think we in the Senate who are opposed to this amendment to defund this Executive order are sending the same message, and I urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment and to vote against the motion to proceed. I thank both Senators for yielding me time.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I speak today in support of the amendment offered by Senator Feingold that will strike section 218, a provision in the bill that would bar HUD from using funds to pursue claims of property insurance redlining. I am proud to be a cosponsor of this amendment. I want to make it very clear that I believe the U.S. Senate should not set the precedent of exempting property insurance from fair housing laws. The Senate report accompanying H.R. 2099 states that section 218 ``prohibits the use of any funds by HUD for any activity pertaining to property insurance.'' What this means is that HUD could not [[Page S 14360]] investigate any Fair Housing claims of property insurance redlining. If the provision is not stricken, Americans might be kept from buying houses because they might not be able to get homeowners insurance. I believe that all Americans have the right to homeowners' insurance regardless of race or ethnicity or the neighborhood where they live. The insurance industry claims that this type of denial of coverage is not taking place, but HUD reports that it continues to process and settle thousands of claims of property insurance redlining. Unfortunately, the practice of denying coverage to Americans because of the neighborhood they live in or the color of their skin is still happening. The Wall Street Journal on September 12, 1995, reported in an article titled, ``Study Finds Redlining Is Widespread in Sales of Home-Insurance Policies,'' that a ``study by the Fair Housing Alliance and other civil rights groups found that minority callers to insurance agents were often denied service or quoted higher rates than white callers seeking insurance for similar homes in predominately white neighborhoods.'' If HUD is barred from investigating claims of property insurance redlining, Americans will be denied the protection of a basic civil rights law. I do not think that insurance companies should be exempt from property insurance provisions in the Fair Housing Act. This is a simple amendment that will protect all Americans from discrimination by insurance companies when they are trying to purchase homeowners insurance. I want to thank my colleague for offering this important amendment.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Enough has been said. People have heard it.

Mr. WELLSTONE. May I have 30 seconds?

Mr. WELLSTONE. I will say to my colleague from New Jersey, may I have 1 more minute?

Mr. WELLSTONE. Do I have the floor?

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, the minority leader and I have issued an objection to the Finance Committee meeting. The reason for that, Mr. President, is that I just think that what is going on right now here is a rush to foolishness. Mr. President, in my State of Minnesota, we just found out a few days ago that as opposed to $2.5 billion in Medicaid cuts, we were going to be seeing $3.5 billion in Medicaid cuts. It was just yesterday that we finally got the specifics of what is going to happen in Medicare. And I just will tell you, Mr. President, that I am pleased to be a part of this with the minority leader because when I was home in Minnesota, I found that it is not that people are opposed to change, but people have this sense that there is this fast track to recklessness here, that we are not carefully evaluating what the impact is going to be on people. What people in Minnesota are saying is, what is the rush? You all do the work you are supposed to do. How can a Finance Committee today go ahead without any public hearings on these filed proposals, pass it out of the Finance Committee, and then put it into a reconciliation process where we have limited debate? Mr. President, it seems to me that there is no more precious commodity than health care and the health care of the people we represent. This objection, with the minority leader, is an objection to a process. And this process right now I think is really way off course. We have no business--the Finance Committee should not pass out proposals without any public hearing, without having experts come in. We have not done that at all. We should not be doing that. Mr. President, this is supposed to be a deliberative body and it is supposed to be a representative democracy. We are supposed to be careful about the impact of what we do on the lives of people we represent. I would just say that I am very proud to be a part of this objection because somebody, somewhere, sometime has to say to people in the country that these changes are getting ramrodded through the Senate. That is what is going on here. The proposal came out yesterday, I say to my colleague from Maryland. I will tell you, as you look at these specific proposals, I can tell you as a Senator from Minnesota that I know there is going to be a lot of pain in my State. I believe, Mr. President, that the Finance Committee needs to have the public hearing and I believe that Senators need to be back in their States now that we have specific proposals, and we need to be talking to the people who are affected by this. Let us not be afraid of the people we represent. Let us let the people in the country take a look at what we are doing. What this effort is, is an effort to say ``no'' to this rush to recklessness, ``no'' to this fast track to foolishness. The committee ought to have a public hearing. I think it is unacceptable.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Chair.