Paul Wellstone

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent I be included as an original cosponsor.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Madam President, I am very proud to be an original cosponsor, I say to my colleagues, of both of these amendments. There is, I think, a very, very direct question for each Senator to answer. In exchange for agreeing not to have any tax giveaways for individuals, families with incomes under $100,000 a year, we will make sure that we do not put into effect an egregious practice of mean testing compensation for veterans that are struggling with mental illness, service-connected. As the Secretary has said, Jesse Brown, I think one of the best Secretaries we have, the only difference between veterans that are mentally incapacitated and physically is those that are mentally quite often cannot speak for themselves. This would be a terrible and cruel thing if we now have this unequal treatment. Finally, Madam President, to be able to restore $511 million so we keep a quality of inpatient and outpatient care, that is what this is about; not the tax giveaways for those with high incomes and a commitment to veterans. These are two extremely important amendments that represent a litmus test for all of us. Madam President, I am pleased and proud to be an original cosponsor of the two amendments to H.R. 2099, the VA-HUD appropriations bill for fiscal year 1996 that specifically concern our Nation's veterans. My distinguished colleagues who are cosponsoring this amendment are to be congratulated for their efforts to ensure veterans' access to quality VA health care is not seriously compromised and to protect some mentally incompetent veterans who are being targeted for discriminatory, arbitrary, and shameful cuts in VA compensation. Madam President, while these amendments address two different issues--veterans health care and compensation for the most vulnerable group of American veterans--they are prompted by one basic concern. Our pressing need to balance the budget. Unfortunately this pressing need is being used to justify unequal sacrifice. Veterans with service- connected disabilities and indigent veterans, many of whom earned their VA benefits at great cost on bloody battlefields are seeing those benefits whittled away, while the most affluent of our citizens are exempted from sacrifice. Instead of being asked to share the pain, the wealthy seemingly are supposed to contribute to balancing the budget by accepting substantial tax cuts. What kind of shared sacrifice is this? I believe that one of the great strengths of these amendments is that they make a significant contribution to righting the balance. The $511 million that would be restored to the medical care account to enable the VA to meet veterans health care needs and the $170 million that is needed to ensure that all mentally ill veterans continue to receive unrestricted compensation are to be offset by limiting any tax cuts provided in the reconciliation bill to families with incomes of less than $100,000. Our Nation's veterans are prepared to sacrifice for the good of this country as they have done so often in the past, but only if the sacrifices they are asked to make are: First, equitable; second, reasonable; and third, essential. Clearly, these sacrifices that service-connected--particularly mentally incompetent veterans--and indigent veterans are being asked to make meet none of these essential criteria. Madam President, before I conclude I would like to discuss each of the amendments. One of the amendments would restore to the medical care account $511 million cut from the President's budget for fiscal year 1996. While there may be some doubt as to the validity of VA projections of the precise impact of such a cut on veterans health care, there is little doubt that it would result in some combination of substantial reductions in the number of veterans treated both as outpatients and inpatients as the number of VA health care personnel shrink. According to the VA, this cut could have an impact that is equivalent to closing some sizable VA medical facilities. While not directly related to this amendment but related to the quality of VA health care generally, this bill also would eliminate all major medical construction projects requested by the President. In the process, some projects involving VA hospitals that do not meet community standards and are deteriorating would not be funded. How can we treat veterans in facilites that do not meet fire and other safety standards? In obsolete facilities that lack separate rest rooms and dressing room areas for men and women veterans? This is a travesty and no way to treat those who have defended our country. Our veterans do not deserve such shabby and undignified treatment and I will do all in my power to see that this shameful situation ends. I hope that all of my colleagues will join me in this long overdue effort. Madam President, as I pointed out at a Veterans' Affairs Committee hearing a few months ago these cuts could not come at a worse time. We are now talking about cutting $270 billion over the next 7 years from Medicare and making deep cuts in Medicaid. This could lead to a much greater demand for VA services precisely at a time when VA health care capabilities are eroding. Would the VA be able to cope with an [[Page S 14340]] influx of elderly and indigent veterans eligible for health care, but currently covered by Medicare or Medicaid? There sometimes is much talk about a declining veterans population, but much less about an aging veterans population--one that disproportionately requires expensive and intensive care. What happens if this population grows even more as a result of Medicare and Medicaid cuts? Before veterans fall victim to the law of unintended consequences, I strongly urge my colleagues to give careful consideration to the cumulative impact on veterans health care of such concurrent cuts in Federal health care funding. Regarding the other Rockefeller amendment, I was frankly appalled when I learned that both the House and Senate versions of H.R. 2099 include a provision that limits compensation benefits for mentally incompetent veterans without dependents but does not limit benefits for physically incapacitated veterans without dependents--or any other class of veterans for that matter. As I understand it, compensation for service-connected disabilities paid to mentally incompetent veterans without dependents would be terminated when the veteran's estate reached $25,000 and not reinstated until the veteran's estate fell to $10,000. Such unequal treatment is outrageous and indefensible. How can we discriminate against veterans who became disabled while serving their country only because they are mentally ill. In eloquent and informative testimony before the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee, Secretary of Veterans Affairs Jessie Brown, who I regard as an outstanding Cabinet officer and a singularly tenacious and effective advocate for veterans, pointed out that the only difference between veterans who have lost both arms and legs and those who have a mental condition as a result of combat fatigue, is that the latter group cannot defend themselves. Moreover, the Secretary stressed, we are not only talking about veterans who seem to have no organic basis for their mental illness, but also veterans who were shot in the head on the battlefield and as a result of brain damage cannot attend to their own affairs. And, I might add that to make matters worse, this provision amounts to means-tested compensation that applies to only one class of veterans--the mentally ill. I am aware that such a provision was enacted in OBRA 1990 and withstood court challenge, but the fact that it was held to be constitutional makes it no less abhorrent. Fortunately Congress had the good sense to let this onerous provision expire in 1992. Victimizing the most vulnerable of our veterans while providing tax cuts to our wealthiest citizens smacks of afflicting the afflicted while comforting the comfortable. I urge my colleagues from both sides of the aisle to support the Rockefeller amendment on this subject. Finally, Madam President, I am very proud to be a Member of the Senate, the oldest democratically elected deliberative body in the world. But I am sure the last thing any of you would want is for this great deliberative body to merely rubber stamp ill-advised actions by the House and in the case of the VA medical account to make matters even worse by appropriating $327 million less than was appropriated by the House. The veterans health care and compensation protected by these two amendments are by no means handouts, but entitlements earned by men and women who put their lives on the line to defend this great country. They are part and parcel of America's irrevocable contract with its veterans, a contract that long predates the Contract With America we have heard so much about recently. I have a deep commitment to Minnesota veterans to protect the veterans benefits they have earned and are entitled to and in cosponsoring these amendments I am keeping my faith with them. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting both amendments.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I wonder if my colleague will yield for a moment? Since I was a part of this objection with the minority leader, I wanted to take 2 minutes, if that would be all right.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I am pleased and proud to be an original cosponsor of the two amendments to H.R. 2099, the VA-HUD appropriations bill for fiscal year 1996 that specifically concern our Nation's veterans. My distinguished colleagues who are cosponsoring this amendment are to be congratulated for their efforts to ensure veterans' access to quality VA health care is not seriously compromised and to protect some mentally incompetent veterans who are being targeted for discriminatory, arbitrary, and shameful cuts in VA compensation. Mr. President, while these amendments address two different issues-- veterans health care and compensation for the most vulnerable group of American veterans--they are prompted by one basic concern. Our pressing need to balance the budget. Unfortunately this pressing need is being used to justify unequal sacrifice. Veterans with service-connected disabilities and indigent veterans, many of whom earned their VA benefits at great cost on bloody battlefields are seeing those benefits whittled away, while the most affluent of our citizens are exempted from sacrifice. Instead of being asked to share the pain, the wealthy seemingly are supposed to contribute to balancing the budget by accepting substantial tax cuts. What kind of shared sacrifice is this? I believe that one of the great strengths of these amendments is that they make a significant contribution to righting the balance. The $511 million that would be restored to the medical care account to enable the VA to meet veterans health care needs and the $170 million that is needed to ensure that all mentally ill veterans continue to receive unrestricted compensation are to be offset by limiting any tax cuts provided in the reconciliation bill to families with incomes of less than $100,000. Our Nation's veterans are prepared to sacrifice for the good of this country as they have done so often in the past, but only if the sacrifices they are asked to make are: (1) equitable; (2) reasonable; and (3) essential. Clearly, these sacrifices that service-connected-- particularly mentally incompetent veterans--and indigent veterans are being asked to make meet none of these essential criteria. Mr. President, before I conclude I would like to discuss each of the amendments. Amendment No. 2785 would restore to the medical care account $511 million cut from the President's budget for fiscal year 1996. While there may be some doubt as to the validity of VA projections of the precise impact of such a cut on veterans health care, there is little doubt that it would result in some combination of substantial reductions in the number of veterans treated both as outpatients and inpatients as the number of VA health care personnel shrink. According to the VA, this cut could have an impact that is equivalent to closing some sizable VA medical facilities. While not directly related to this amendment but related to the quality of VA health care generally, this bill also would eliminate all major medical construction projects requested by the President. In the process, some projects involving VA hospitals that do not meet community standards and are deteriorating would not be funded. How can we treat veterans in facilities that do not meet fire and other safety standards? In obsolete facilities that lack separate rest rooms and dressing room areas for men and women veterans? This is a travesty and no way to treat those who have defended our country. Our veterans don't deserve such shabby and undignified treatment and I will do all in my power to see that this shameful situation ends. I hope that all of my colleagues will join me in this long overdue effort. Mr. President, as I pointed out at a Veterans Affairs Committee hearing a few months ago these cuts could not come at a worse time. We are now talking about cutting $270 billion over the next 7 years from Medicare and making deep cuts in Medicaid. This could lead to a much greater demand for VA services precisely at a time when VA health care capabilities are eroding. Would the VA be able to cope with an influx of elderly and indigent veterans eligible for health care, but currently covered by Medicare or Medicaid? There sometimes is much talk about a declining veterans' population, but much less about an aging veterans' population--one that disproportionately requires expensive and intensive care. What happens if this population grows even more as a result of Medicare and Medicaid cuts? Before veterans fall victim to the law of unintended consequences, I strongly urge my colleagues to give careful consideration to the cumulative impact on veterans' health care of such concurrent cuts in Federal health care funding. Regarding amendment No. 2784, I was frankly appalled when I learned that both the House and Senate versions of H.R. 2099 include a provision that limits compensation benefits for mentally incompetent veterans without dependents but does not limit benefits for physically incapacitated veterans without dependents--or any other class of veterans for that matter. As I understand it, compensation for service- connected disabilities paid to mentally incompetent veterans without dependents would be terminated when the veteran's estate reached $25,000 and not reinstated until the veteran's estate fell to $10,000. Such unequal treatment is outrageous and indefensible. How can we discriminate against veterans who became disabled while serving their country only because they are mentally ill. In eloquent and informative testimony before the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee, Secretary of Veterans Affairs Jessie Brown, who I regard as an outstanding Cabinet officer and a singularly tenacious and effective advocate for veterans, pointed out that the only difference between veterans who have lost both arms and legs and those [[Page S 14293]] who have a mental condition as a result of combat fatigue, is that the latter group can't defend themselves. Moreover, the Secretary stressed, we are not only talking about veterans who seem to have no organic basis for their mental illness, but also veterans who were shot in the head on the battlefield and as a result of brain damage can't attend to their own affairs. And, I might add that to make matters worse, this provision amounts to means-tested compensation that applies to only one class of veterans--the mentally ill. I am aware that such a provision was enacted in OBRA 1990 and withstood court challenge, but the fact that it was held to be constitutional makes it no less abhorrent. Fortunately, Congress had the good sense to let this onerous provision expire in 1992. Victimizing the most vulnerable of our veterans while providing tax cuts to our wealthiest citizens smacks of afflicting the afflicted while comforting the comfortable. I urge my colleagues from both sides of the aisle to support amendment No. 2784. Finally, Mr. President, I am very proud to be a Member of the Senate, the oldest democratically elected deliberative body in the world. But I'm sure the last thing any of you would want is for this great deliberative body to merely rubberstamp ill-advised actions by the House and in the case of the VA Medical Account to make matters even worse by appropriating $327 million less than was appropriated by the House. The veterans health care and compensation protected by these two amendments are by no means handouts, but entitlements earned by men and women who put their lives on the line to defend this great country. They are part and parcel of America's irrevocable contract with its veterans, a contract that long predates the Contract With America we've heard so much about recently. I have a deep commitment to Minnesota veterans to protect the veterans benefits they have earned and are entitled to and in cosponsoring these amendments I am keeping my faith with them. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting both amendments.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Mikulski amendment, and I ask to be added as a cosponsor. As a former college professor and community organizer, I was proud to be a part of creating and now implementing the National Service Program. I was also proud to bring the vast experience of people and programs in my State to Washington as Congress was considering this original legislation. People across my State of Minnesota and the rest of the country have worked in National Service programs which has helped our Nation and local communities solve social problems while at the same time strengthen democracy and citizenship. From all I see, this is a program that works. Over half of the AmeriCorp members in Minnesota signed up for another year of service. This is not about paid service at all. Service in Minnesota is about citizenship, to be part of a community, stepping forward to serve. These people are not getting rich by any means. The participants are making $4.50 an hour. This is essentially minimum wage. If you think today's youth are cynical; if you think they are disengaged and apathetic, you are wrong. I have met them. This program is all about participation and citizenship. Listen to what some of these young people in Minnesota have said about the program: David Jacobsma: ``It has meant meeting new people with a wide variety of backgrounds. It has meant money for my education. It has meant new life experiences.'' Holly Sirjord: ``I feel I have contributed to my community. I not only worked with the personal aspects of the community, but I feel in return I have learned a lot by working with the natural aspects as well.'' Katherine Musch: ``AmeriCorps is a wonderful service organization that helps people help themselves build futures. This past year I have learned so much working with people and nature. It was great to feel a part of something so worthwhile. I am proud to be a member and would love to see AmeriCorps continued.'' Aaron Neubert: ``It has given me the opportunity to use my college degree. I am anxious to show future employers that I have experience.'' Kelly Engen: ``Being a member of the AmeriCorps program has meant a great deal to me. It has given me a sense of pride knowing that I am giving something back to the local communities that have given so much to me.'' Tim Reese: ``An opportunity to experience resource management on a watershed scale, frustration, a valuable experience, good training, an understanding of the workings of a Federal agency and a way to help pay for graduate school.'' Russell Boheim: ``AmeriCorps has given me the opportunity to use the knowledge and experience I've gained on a natural resources project benefitting the people in the region, where I was raised.'' Tony Kroska: ``AmeriCorps is, and has been, an excellent opportunity to use and test my skills to further the improvement of a region that I consider to be a valuable resource.'' Shelly Eckblad: ``AmeriCorps--group of Americans forming a body of persons, acting together in a common direction. That direction is to solve problems facing our country--the United States.'' Tracy Guthmiller: ``AmeriCorps to me means opportunity. AmeriCorps has given me the opportunity to assist others while at the same time gain valuable experience for myself.'' Linda Dahl: ``To me AmeriCorps has meant helping those who are willing to work toward improving their stewardship of the land. I believe this will lead to a better informed rural community and a healthier living environment.'' DiAnn Koening: ``Being an AmeriCorps member has given me the opportunity to serve local communities through individual and team efforts, acquire new skills, and become more knowledgeable of the local agencies and what services they provide.'' Melissa Stommes: ``Being an AmeriCorps member has given me a lot of opportunities to test my talents, explore more options, and meet new people.'' Graeme Belcher: ``AmeriCorps has given me the chance to make my community and myself better. The results of my actions will affect the environment so that everyone can live healthier and happier lives.'' Joy Swenson: ``I have learned many things in my AmeriCorps stint, so far. I have been trained in some things that will be a definite help to me in my future career--along with some things that will help out my life in general. Things such as team spirit and working with a range of attitudes and personalities. I cannot really say all I want to in 25 words or less, but I will end with this thought. I believe that being an AmeriCorps member will be an experience that I will always remember.'' Dean Lutz: ``The AmeriCorps program has been beneficial to me in helping me develop and achieve my goals. The NRCS and other surrounding people are fantastic to work along side.'' Jeff York: ``Being a AmeriCorps member has allowed me to return and serve the area I grew up in. As a member, I have enjoyed the responsibility and commitment it takes to serve others. I have also been introduced to a new, diverse group of Americans that, without this experience, I would not have been able to otherwise meet.'' Brian Krzmarzick: ``Being an AmeriCorps member is having a chance to learn new things and meet fun and exciting people while doing something that will help my community and country.'' Michael Aho: ``AmeriCorps has provided a way for me to face the challenges of the future by taking the first of many steps after college.'' I think what some in Washington who are trying to dismantle this program because they are afraid that it makes people think. It makes people who are working with homeless people to ask why is there homelessness. People who are working in the inner city are asking why is there poverty? And those who are working to clean up our environment are asking why is there pollution? Every program in Minnesota is in a partnership with either a State and/or private partners. All these new partnerships were spurred by this program. It has leveraged a lot of private funds. Community service programs in Minnesota and across the Nation have offended hundreds of thousands of young people the opportunity to learn while serving their communities. Community service programs have provided important and necessary services to communities all over the country. Programs have empowered students to improve conditions in their own communities by encouraging them to become a part of their community. Service-learning programs have taught young people about the skills of citizenships, responsibility, and democracy while teaching them math, science, civics, English, history at the same time. Students through these wonderful programs have had their eyes opened to new opportunities and to diversity and multiculturalism in society. They have taught people how to utilize community resources to improve their lives. In Minnesota, we have combined State funding under the Youth Works Program and the Federal dollars in the AmeriCorps Program to create an excellent program. People of all ages, but especially our young people, have been encouraged to help their communities and get involved in their communities. We created a program that empowers people to participate, to make changes in their communities, and a program that teaches the skills of citizenship, responsibility and democracy. I urge my colleagues to support the AmeriCorps Program and service learning and support the Mikulski amendment. Mr. President, I find the description of this program as kids trying to find out who they are insulting. I do not even recognize the program my colleagues are describing. In Minnesota, AmeriCorps is really an exceptional program. It is quite a wonderful thing to see the work done in a child care center, the work done in the environment, the work done for senior citizens, the work done for communities, combined with a whole lot of young people who are able then to begin to build the resources to attend higher education. Mr. President, I would call this a marriage. It is well worth it. It is the very best in this country. As to deficit reduction, why do we not cut the subsidies for the oil companies, the coal companies, the tobacco companies and the pharmaceutical companies? Why do not we go after the military contractors, and what do we do when there is a $245 billion tax giveaway mainly to wealthy people? But instead, when it comes to community services, young people and higher education, and that kind of marriage, that is where we want to cut. That is not a Minnesota standard of fairness, and I am proud to stand on the floor and speak for AmeriCorps.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Thank you, Mr. President. I thank the Senator from Maryland. I ask unanimous consent that I be added as an original cosponsor.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask to have printed in the Record the text of a letter to Ellen Shaffer expressing my gratitude for her service as a member of my staff since 1992. The letter follows: U.S. Senate, Washington, DC, September 20, 1995. Ms. Ellen R. Shaffer 807 Arrington Drive, Silver Spring, MD. Dear Ellen: I want to express to you my deep gratitude and appreciation for your contributions to my overall efforts to improve health care for people, and in particular to national health care reform legislation, during your tenure with my office. As my principal legislative assistant for national health policy since January 1992, you have worked tirelessly on this subject with great knowledge and skill. Because of your long experience in this area, you were able to craft the American Health Security Act, my legislative proposal for a national single payer health care system. You worked diligently with the organizations supporting the bill, and, as a result, they became important participants in advancing our proposal. As a result of your expertise and writing skills, we were able to propose and have published in the New England Journal of Medicine an outstanding piece on the merits of a single payer approach to national health care reform I, along with Senator Domenici, was able to lead effectively the Senate's Working Group on Mental Health as a direct result of your strategic skills and your ability to establish a coalition among those parties having diverse views. Similarly, you were instrumental in working with the American Medical Association to develop the legislation known as the Patient Protection Act, a measure which enabled me to fulfill my role as an advocate for health care consumers. I greatly valued your skills at financial analysis and your ability to expand quickly those skills, which were so critical to our work on health care legislation, and your successful efforts to communicate the merits of our legislative work through the media to the public at large. Ellen, I have often said in public that your brilliance and dedication led people to believe that I had a health care staff of ten. I consider myself enormously fortunate that you have been my health care staff of one--supplemented, certainly, by the excellent contributions of talented fellows with whom you collaborated in our office. I wish you well in your future endeavors, and I look forward to continuing to see the positive results of the work we have done together. Sincerely, Paul Wellstone

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, the issue of female genital mutilation [FGM] was first brought before the Senate last September when Senator Reid introduced a sense-of-the-Senate resolution condemning this cruel ritual practice and commending the Government of Egypt for taking quick action against two men who performed this deed on a 10-year-old girl in front of CNN television cameras. This amendment would make it illegal to perform the procedures of FGM on girls younger than 18. In addition, it proscribes the following measures as necessary to the eradication of this procedure: compiling data on the number of females in the U.S. who have been subjected to FGM, identifying communities in the United States in which it is practiced, designing and implementing outreach activities to inform people of its physical and psychological effects, and developing recommendations for educating students in medical schools on treating women and girls who have undergone mutilations. I am proud to be a cosponsor of this amendment that addresses an issue so crucial to the mental and physical health of women and girls. The ritual practice of female genital mutilation currently affects an estimated 80 million women in over 30 countries. Although FGM is most widespread in parts of Africa, the Middle East, and the Far East, immigrants from practicing groups have brought the custom to wherever they have settled. In the countries and cultures of its origin, FGM is most commonly performed with crude instruments such as dull razor blades, glass, and kitchen knives while the girl is tied or held down by other women. In most cases, anesthesia is not used. Afterwards, herb mixtures, cow dung, or ashes are often rubbed on the wound to stop the bleeding. Aside from the obvious emotional and physical trauma which are caused by this procedure, it has been estimated that 15 percent of all circumcised females die as a result of the ritual. The long term effects dealt with by American doctors who treat mutilated women and girls are listed by the New England Journal of Medicine as including chronic pelvic infections, infertility, chronic urinary tract infections, dermoid cysts (which may grow to the size of a grapefruit), and chronic anxiety or depression. Although female genital mutilation has sometimes been viewed as a purely cultural phenomena, it is clear that no ethical justification can be made for this inhumane practice in any country. Additionally, FGM has already been banned in many Western nations. In 1982, Sweden passed a law making all forms of female circumcision illegal, and the United Kingdom passed a similar law in 1985. France, the Netherlands, Canada, and Belgium have each set a precedent for the illegality of female circumcision by holding that it violates laws prohibiting bodily mutilation and child abuse. Action has been taken to enforce the statutes banning this practice in all the countries I've just mentioned. However, due to complex cultural factors, dealing with this issue in the United States requires more than making the ritual practice of FGM illegal. Immigrant parents in the United States who import a circumciser from their home country or find an American doctor willing to perform the procedure claim to do so out of a desire to do the best thing for their daughters. In the societies and cultures that practice it, FGM is said to be an integral part of the socialization of girls into acceptable womanhood. Often, the mutilations are perceived by a girl's parents as her passport to social acceptance or the required physical marking of her marriageability. In spite of its obvious cruelty therefore, FGM is a part of cultural identity. Clearly, female genital mutilation must be dealt with in a manner which takes into account its complex causes and meanings. Because of the complexity of this issue and the lack of available information regarding FGM in the United States, this amendment includes a provision ensuring that research be carried out to determine the number of females in the U.S. who have undergone mutilations. This research would also [[Page S 13930]] document the types of physical and psychological damage dealt with by American medical professionals who treat mutilated woman. Finally, this amendment would ensure that medical students are educated in how to treat women and girls who have undergone FGM. In 1994, the New England Journal of Medicine reported that pregnant women who have undergone infibulation--in which the labia majora are stitched to cover the urethra and entrance to the vagina--are at serious risk, as are their unborn babies, if treated by physicians who have not been trained in dealing with infibulated women. In fact, untreated infibulated women have double the risk of maternal death and several times increased risk of stillbirth when compared with women who have not undergone mutilation. Passage of this amendment would also send a clear message to American medical professionals, some of whom reportedly have been offered as much as $3,000 to perform mutilations on young girls. It would see to it that the names of Western doctors who mutilate girls would no longer be passed around in immigrant communities. Female genital mutilation is the world's most widespread form of torture, yet no other mass dilation of humanity has received so comparatively little journalistic or governmental attention. We in the United States should make it clear that it is a serious crime if it occurs here. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment as an essential tool in the straggle against the perpetuation of this heinous practice.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I have offered amendments that have been adopted--and so have other colleagues--that have mitigated some of the harshest effects of this piece of legislation. But an essential truth remains. For the first time in 60 years, we are eliminating a floor below which we never before allowed children to fall. Mr. President, for the first time in 60 years, we are saying that as a national commitment, as a national community, we will no longer take the responsibility to make sure that every child, even the poorest of children, at least has some minimal level of assistance, that children do not go hungry. Mr. President, I ask myself the question: Will the passage of this legislation mean that there will be more impoverished children and more hungry children in America? The answer to that question is yes, and that is why I must vote no. Mr. President, I ask myself the question: Is it true that the passage of this legislation will shut out hundreds of thousands of disabled children from essential services? The answer to that question is yes. That is why I will vote no. Mr. President, I ask myself, as a Senator from Minnesota, the following question: In the context of all of the slash and burn--cuts in housing, cuts in Medicare, cuts in Medicaid, cuts in EITC, cuts in all these programs, with States then having to figure out where they are going to come up with the resources--I ask myself the question: Who is going to lose out? The answer is that it is going to be the children. They do not have a lobbyist. They do not have the PAC's. They are not the heavy hitters. They are the ones who are going to be left behind. And it is for that reason, Mr. President, that I will vote no. We moved to a national standard in the early 1970's because we had children with distended bellies in our country. We had malnourishment and hunger in America. We said as a national community that we would not let that happen. Now we are turning the clock back. For the first time in 60 years, we move away from that commitment. This is a profound mistake for America. Mr. President, I ask myself the question: Is it the Minnesota tradition--an almost unique tradition--to speak for children, to advocate for children, to vote for children, to vote for all of God's children? And the answer to that question is ``yes.'' Therefore, as a Senator from Minnesota, I will vote ``no.'' The Dole bill will also affect the Hmong, approximately 30,000 of whom live in Minnesota and share with us their rich heritage and culture. Many in the Hmong community came to the United States to escape persecution after they aided the United States in the secret war of Laos. Many of the Hmong now receive SSI and will be in danger of losing their benefits under the Dole bill. It is difficult--due to language barriers, lack of formal education and age--for the Hmong to become self sufficient. A large number of them depend on SSI benefits for their survival. I yield the floor.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, to save a highly cost effective and vital program that assists homeless veterans to find employment, I am today introducing a bill that would reauthorize the Homeless Veterans Employment Program [HVEP]--formerly called the Homeless Veterans Reintegration Project--for 3 years. As some of you may recall, during the debate on H.R. 1944, the rescissions bill, I expressed my dismay and strong opposition to the zeroing out of this low-cost national program--funded at just over $5 million annually--that is so important to homeless veterans. In view of the fact that up to one-third of America's homeless are veterans--an estimated 271,000 can be found on the streets any given night--and Minnesota veterans have often told me about the effectiveness of HVEP, I was appalled when I learned that the program had fallen victim to a late-night leadership agreement with the administration on the rescissions package. Since it is such a small program, many of your may be unaware of HVEP's background and its impressive accomplishments. HVEP, which is administered by the Labor Department's Veterans Employment and Training Service, is a job-placement program begun in fiscal year 1989. HVEP provides grants to community based groups that employ flexible and innovative approaches to assist homeless, unemployed veterans to reenter the work force. Let me repeat--grants to community-based groups, not funding to some large impersonal Federal bureaucracy that some of my colleagues regularly deride. Permit me to briefly point out some of HVEP's strengths and accomplishments: It is one of the most successful job placement programs in the Federal Government. Since its inception it has placed 11,000 veterans into jobs at approximately $1,000 per placement. HVEP grantees build complimentary relationships with VA, Job Training Partnership Act, and other programs--they do not duplicate any other services. HVEP is critical to the implementation and success of the innovative standdown projects that are held across the country. I have had the good fortune of attending several Minnesota standdowns, including one recently, and I have been consistently impressed with the effectiveness of this volunteer program of veterans helping homeless veterans. I've been deeply moved by the sight of veterans doing all they can to help their less fortunate buddies-- veterans exerting themselves to care for homeless veterans whom the rest of society tends to ignore and, sometimes even scorn. Standdowns are a unique point of light that need to be nourished, not strangled. And the same is true for the HVEP itself. In conclusion, I want to stress that the $5 million saved annually by terminating HVEP will quickly be offset by the enormous costs of providing public assistance to the veterans who will remain homeless due to the lack of a paying job. Reauthorization of HVEP will permit us to meet our obligation to men and women who fought bravely and unquestioningly for our country, but who are desperately seeking work to escape the misery and indignities of homelessness. Mr. President, I ask that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, to save a highly cost effective and vital program that assists homeless veterans to find employment, I am today introducing a bill that would reauthorize the Homeless Veterans Employment Program [HVEP]--formerly called the Homeless Veterans Reintegration Project--for 3 years. As some of you may recall, during the debate on H.R. 1944, the rescissions bill, I expressed my dismay and strong opposition to the zeroing out of this low-cost national program--funded at just over $5 million annually--that is so important to homeless veterans. In view of the fact that up to one-third of America's homeless are veterans--an estimated 271,000 can be found on the streets any given night--and Minnesota veterans have often told me about the effectiveness of HVEP, I was appalled when I learned that the program had fallen victim to a late-night leadership agreement with the administration on the rescissions package. Since it is such a small program, many of your may be unaware of HVEP's background and its impressive accomplishments. HVEP, which is administered by the Labor Department's Veterans Employment and Training Service, is a job-placement program begun in fiscal year 1989. HVEP provides grants to community based groups that employ flexible and innovative approaches to assist homeless, unemployed veterans to reenter the work force. Let me repeat--grants to community-based groups, not funding to some large impersonal Federal bureaucracy that some of my colleagues regularly deride. Permit me to briefly point out some of HVEP's strengths and accomplishments: It is one of the most successful job placement programs in the Federal Government. Since its inception it has placed 11,000 veterans into jobs at approximately $1,000 per placement. HVEP grantees build complimentary relationships with VA, Job Training Partnership Act, and other programs--they do not duplicate any other services. HVEP is critical to the implementation and success of the innovative standdown projects that are held across the country. I have had the good fortune of attending several Minnesota standdowns, including one recently, and I have been consistently impressed with the effectiveness of this volunteer program of veterans helping homeless veterans. I've been deeply moved by the sight of veterans doing all they can to help their less fortunate buddies-- veterans exerting themselves to care for homeless veterans whom the rest of society tends to ignore and, sometimes even scorn. Standdowns are a unique point of light that need to be nourished, not strangled. And the same is true for the HVEP itself. In conclusion, I want to stress that the $5 million saved annually by terminating HVEP will quickly be offset by the enormous costs of providing public assistance to the veterans who will remain homeless due to the lack of a paying job. Reauthorization of HVEP will permit us to meet our obligation to men and women who fought bravely and unquestioningly for our country, but who are desperately seeking work to escape the misery and indignities of homelessness. Mr. President, I ask that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, on behalf of myself and Senators Pressler, Harkin, Kerrey, Conrad, and Dorgan, I am introducing a bill to correct a discrepancy in the Tax Code which acts to discriminate against a type of enterprise that Federal policy should actually be encouraging: small, cooperatively owned ethanol plants. [[Page S 13662]] The bill would allow these plants to utilize the existing small ethanol producers credit by passing the credit through to their owner/members. I am confident that it was never the intention of Congress to preclude cooperatives from making full use of this credit. Rather, the current obstacle facing co-ops is a result of legislative oversight at the time the original small producers credit was passed. Farmer-owned cooperatives simply were not a prominent part of the ethanol industry landscape in 1990, whereas today they certainly are. Indeed, I am extremely pleased that Minnesota leads the Nation in small, cooperatively owned ethanol plants. We have two already in operation, and four more under construction in our State. Still another Minnesota cooperative ethanol plant has been so successful that it has expanded in our State beyond what the small producers credit considers a small plant, and its owner/members have even constructed an additional cooperative plant in Nebraska. These plants produce a clean fuel which is essential to the achievement of Clean Air Act objectives in American cities. They create jobs in rural communities. By utilizing agricultural commodity crops, they bolster the price of those crops and thus reduce the cost of Federal farm programs. And because they are owned by farmers, small ethanol-producing cooperatives allow farmers to do what is becoming more and more necessary: Move up the food chain and capture the value- added dollars in processed agricultural products. Not only farmers benefit from this retention of value-added processing dollars; entire rural communities do. Farmer-owned cooperatives help make sure that precious renewable resources contribute to the local rural economy and are not merely removed for a low price and processed in other locations. Mr. President, Congress has recognized the importance of promoting the development of domestically produced, renewable clean fuels. In addition to the economic and environmental benefits I have mentioned, we in Congress also consciously have decided for energy-security reasons to promote domestic renewables. The relatively young ethanol industry has received needed assistance. That assistance is especially justified in view of the decades of assistance and preference that the Federal Government has provided for the nonrenewable fossil fuels industry, much of whose product today is imported. The assistance we have provided to the ethanol industry is paying off. It is allowing the industry to grow, and it is making the industry better. It has helped the ethanol industry become more economically efficient and more energy efficient. A study released by the Department of Agriculture this summer concludes that ethanol yields nearly 25 percent more energy than is used in the growing, harvesting, and distilling of the corn that is the feed stock for most American ethanol plants--plants which convert that corn to a premium liquid fuel. USDA's study found that each gallon of domestically produced ethanol displaces 7 gallons of imported oil. That is a remarkably positive statistic. One criticism of Federal support for ethanol is that the industry has in its recent history been dominated by a single large corporation. The small producer credit and the extension of that credit to cooperatively owned plants acts directly to address that concern. In Minnesota, cooperatively owned plants are the leading ethanol producers. That trend can and should be further encouraged. The existing small ethanol producer credit allows ethanol plants which produce fewer than 30 million gallons annually to collect a 10- cent-per-gallon tax credit for the first 15 million gallons of their production. Unfortunately, the Internal Revenue Service has judged that the way the provision of the Tax Code is currently written, cooperatives cannot pass the credit through to their patrons. Thus, a co-op which distributes all income to patrons in the form of dividends cannot utilize the nonrefundable credit because it lacks taxable income to which the credit can be applied. Farmer-owners, who are taxed on their share of the cooperative's income, are denied the credit. The bill would correct this unintentional negative outcome by explicitly authorizing the passthrough of the credit to patrons of a cooperative. Those few cooperatively owned ethanol plants which retain income at the cooperative level, usually due to the business' relationship to another cooperative business, could continue to collect the credit at the cooperative level. Mr. President, it is no time to stand still regarding Federal policy which affects the economic health of our rural communities. This bill links positive effects for the rural economy to sound energy and environmental policy. It is endorsed by the National Council for Farm Cooperatives, the American Farm Bureau Federation, the National Corn Growers Association, the National Farmers Union, and the American Corn Growers. It has been introduced with bipartisan cosponsorship in the House of Representatives, and I hope we can pass it here in the Senate. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. I actually will defer to the Senator from Maryland. We defeated a similar amendment last session. I yield to the Senator from Maryland.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I have spoken before in the debate----

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Well, Mr. President, then what my colleague from Pennsylvania has said is that this amendment----

Mr. WELLSTONE. Is the Senator saying there is a possibility that we would rescind what we have stated is a major provision of this welfare reform bill, namely, the requirement that States extend the Medicaid coverage for a year? Is that what the Senator is saying, that we may very well rescind what we have now passed?

Mr. WELLSTONE. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. WELLSTONE. I will reserve the remainder of my time to maybe get a sense--I am puzzled why this amendment has not been accepted. Mr. SANTORUM addressed the Chair.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I call up amendment 2505. Mr. President, I think the best way for me to proceed on this--and I must say to my colleagues, I am actually puzzled; this is the amendment that I thought would be accepted without any [[Page S 13633]] question--is to let me go through the findings. Findings. The potential loss of Medicaid coverage represents a large disincentive for welfare recipients to accept jobs that offer no health insurance. Mr. President, we all know that one of the problems when a mother wants to move from welfare to workfare is that quite often without any kind of transitional support from Medicaid she is worse off than she was before and just as importantly her children are worse off. Please remember, of the 15 million AFDC population, 9 million are children. Whereas thousands of the Nation's employers continue to find the cost of health care out of reach; whereas the percentage of working people who receive health insurance from their employer has dipped to its lowest point since the 1980's; and whereas children are the largest proportion of the increase in the number of uninsured in recent years, it is the sense of the Senate . . . I am really puzzled by the opposition. I would say this to Senators, that any Medicaid reform enacted by the Senate this year should require that States continue to provide Medicaid for 12 months to families that lose eligibility for welfare benefits because of more earnings or hours of employment. Mr. President, we have said in this health care reform bill that we will have an extension of Medicaid for a year. This sense-of-the-Senate amendment just says the Senate will do what it says it is going to do. I do not understand how there could be any opposition to this amendment. We have said that real welfare reform means there has to be this transition and there are all these proposed cuts in Medicaid. And so what this amendment just says is look, when we take up Medicaid separately, we go on record that the Senate will make sure that with that Medicaid funding there will be 1 year of transitional support. I say to all of my colleagues, Democrats and Republicans alike, we cannot have it both ways. We cannot say that we are in favor of and we know we must provide some transitional coverage so that women and children are not in worse shape because of reform, and make a commitment to do that and now vote against the sense-of-the-Senate amendment that says we will do what we said we were going to do. Mr. President, how much time do I have?

Mr. WELLSTONE. For every Senator that is going to vote on this, I am puzzled. This amendment says: It is the sense of the Senate that any Medicaid reform enacted by the Senate this year should require that States continue to provide Medicaid for 12 months to families who lose eligibility for welfare benefits because of more earnings or hours of employment. That is exactly what we said we are going to do for reform in this bill. Otherwise, there will not be any funding and then this will be truly punitive. So we should go on record voting for what we said we were going to do. I hope every Senator will vote for this amendment. I yield back the remainder of my time. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, how much time do I have left?

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, this is amazing. I want people in the country to understand this. We have said we are going to have this welfare reform, it is not going to be punitive. We changed this for the better. States will be required to carry Medicaid for 1 year. I have a sense of the Senate that makes it clear that in the Medicaid debate that comes up we make a commitment that we will do what we said we would do. And now I hear my colleague from Pennsylvania say, we may very well turn around and not do that. My amendment asks the Senate to go on record that we will do what we have said we are going to do in this piece of legislation. And now I have colleagues that equivocate on this question and say, you know what? This might be a sham. We say we are going to have transitional coverage to make sure that women and children are not hurt, but that is just for now. When it comes to the Medicaid debate, we may very well take away that funding. I do not think the Senators can have it both ways. Are we not going to live up to our word as is now stated in this provision of this piece of legislation? I hope my colleagues will overwhelmingly support this amendment because this is all about the Senate's integrity. Are we for what we say we are for? Will we live up to our commitment? Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I would be pleased to.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, there is some history to this amendment, and I am very pleased it has been accepted. The history is this. Early on in this session, I came to the floor with a sense of the Senate that we would go on record saying we would take no action which could increase hunger or malnutrition among children in America. That amendment was defeated several times but then finally passed. I believe the Senate is now on record on that question. What this amendment says is that every 3 years, if we are going to block grant food stamps, Health and Human Services develops data on child hunger for each State that gets food stamps as a block grant. What we want to look at is whether or not, after moving to block grants, the malnutrition and hunger among children goes up. HHS reports back the data to Congress and also sends a report out to the States and gives States a chance to respond. But if Health and Human Services finds out, based upon this survey--and it is two 3-year increments, as a matter of fact--States have gone to block granting and what has happened is you have seen an increase in hunger among children, then in fact it is no longer a block grant and it goes back to the Federal Food Stamp Program with the national standards. Mr. President, I think this is a kind of proof-in-the pudding amendment. If in fact there are no problems, then there are no problems, and I certainly would assume that is exactly what Senators hope for. My view is that we could very well be making a terrible mistake. My view is that we are coming very close, or we have I think moved away from a fundamental idea that there is a minimal role for the Federal Government in making sure that every child in America, no matter how poor, no matter from what family, no matter in what region of the United States of America, has some minimal level of assistance. This is an amendment that I think provides some check on that. I thank my colleagues on the other side for accepting this amendment, and I urge its approval.