Paul Wellstone

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I am pleased to be a cosponsor of this amendment with Senators Boxer and Murkowski and Mikulski. The amendment is pretty simple. I thank my colleagues from Arizona and Louisiana and Washington for their support. The amendment would require the National Academy of Sciences to conduct a study, A, to determine the cause of the recent increase in the price of natural gas; B, to identify any Federal or State policies that have contributed to price increases; and, C, to determine what Federal action might be necessary to improve natural gas supplies, including the feasibility of a Federal natural gas reserve system. When my colleague from California says that this is not just California, she is absolutely right. In the State of Minnesota, a cold weather State, we just got hit with a big snowstorm yesterday. Families are seeing the price of natural gas going up 45, 50 percent, and it is a real hardship. I am going to be working with Senator Bingaman and others to expand the LIHEAP program. We are going to need that. That just helps the poorest of poor people. And there are other ways of providing help for families. The fact is, a whole lot of families in Minnesota, a whole lot of people, are just being killed by these prices. It is a huge consumer issue. This study is important. Frankly, I think all of us need to try to get a handle on what is happening. For my own part, I say to the wholesalers, I do not quite understand why they were not able to anticipate some of the demand. Personally, I am skeptical about deregulation. This was 1989 and natural gas took effect in 1993. Part of the problem is the wholesalers have no incentive to have an inventory. Therefore, we see the economics of scarcity. But if they are not going to anticipate new power markets going on line, natural gas, new homes, new businesses, much less cold weather, then we are going to be right back again next winter for our State with the economics of scarcity, with the spike in prices. It is murder not just for low income, I say to my colleagues, but also for moderate income, middle income, small businesses--across the board. I am so pleased this amendment has such strong support. I am pleased we are going to vote on it. This is not a study for the sake of a study; this is a study that will provide us with more information so we, as legislators, can take some action to deal with what I think has really become one of the front-burner, central, family, consumer issues in the United States of America. I thank my colleagues.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I will be pleased to yield.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I say to my friend from California, if it was more than 60 days, I do not think I would support it. The last thing I want to see is a study that will go on and on. This calls for action.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, a study by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities just came out. I want to read one statistic. This is Bob Greenstein's organization. Bob received one of those McArthur genius grants. He deserves it. This data on the tax cuts is so important. It says: An estimated 12.2 million low- and moderate-income families with children--31.5 percent of all families--would not receive any tax cut from the Bush proposal . . . . Approximately 24.1 million children--33 percent of all the children in the country--live in these families, and among African Americans and Hispanics, the figures are even more striking: 55 percent of African American children and 56 percent of Hispanic children will receive no tax break at all because it is not refundable. We have to live up to our words of ``leave no child behind.'' I ask unanimous consent that this study by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities be printed in the Record.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, could I ask, what are the terms of morning business?

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

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I had a chance to speak before the National School Board Association yesterday. Sometimes it is only when you speak that you realize how strong your conviction is on an issue. I have come to the floor of the Senate to make an appeal to all Senators, starting with Democrats. The President, in his inaugural speech, talked about leaving no child behind. And the President, in his education proposal, also spoke about leaving no child behind. I think that is a wonderful value and a wonderful vision for our country. That, by the way, is the mission of the wonderful organization called the Children's Defense Fund headed by Marian Wright Edelman. If we look at the arithmetic of the President's tax cut he is proposing this week for the country, and if we are to stay true to the theme of accountability--the President in his education proposal called for accountability--I would like to hold the administration accountable on the floor of the Senate, and with amendments and with debate, in what I think is going to be a historic debate. The non-social Security surplus--putting the Social Security trust fund aside--is $3.1 trillion. President Bush calls for $1.6 trillion in tax cuts. The argument is: There is $1.5 trillion left. What is the problem? The problem is, first of all, when you look at the $1.6 trillion and when you look at the $3.1 trillion surplus, it is not really that, because we all know the Medicare trust fund money will be kept separate, and now all of a sudden $3.1 trillion in surplus becomes $2.6 trillion. When you add to that the tax extenders--the tax credits that we all know will be extended--and the payments that will go to farmers and other groups of citizens in our country, we are now down to $2 trillion. And when you understand that there will be Social Security trust fund solvency issues, which, if we do not deal with those issues, will mean that either benefits are cut or the age eligibility goes up, it may be less than $2 trillion. That is $2 trillion. On the other side of the equation, the $1.6 trillion in tax cuts-- once you now understand that we will no longer be paying down part of the debt, and interest payments go up--becomes $2 trillion--$2 trillion and $2 trillion--$2 trillion in tax cuts, only really $2 trillion in surplus; and there will be no resources for our investment to leave no child behind. There will be no resources. So the only thing you have is a proposal, A, with vouchers, which I think is a nonstarter and I think ultimately will be discarded. Then what you have is telling States and school districts: You do tests every year, starting at age 8--third grade--all the way up to eighth grade. But we are setting the schools and the children and our teachers up for failure because we are not providing any of the resources to make sure that all of those children will not be left behind and will have an opportunity to achieve. Fanny Lou Hamer is a great civil rights leader from the State of Mississippi. She once uttered the immortal words: I'm sick and tired of being sick and tired. I am sick and tired of symbolic politics with children's lives. Where in this budget, where in the arithmetic of the tax cuts and the surplus, will there be the investment to make sure that no child is left behind? Two percent of all the children who could benefit from Early Head Start, 2 years of age and under, benefit today. That is all we have funded. With only 50 percent of Head Start, only 10 percent for good child care for low-income families, much less middle-income families, when are we going to fully fund the IDEA program, which we made a commitment to school districts and States to do? Not in this budget. Not in this budget. I say to Senators and, in particular, since the majority leader is on the floor, to Democrats, it is extremely important that we have a civil debate, but it should be a passionate debate. We ought not to believe that in the call for bipartisanship, we should not as Senators speak up for the values and the people we represent. On present course, the best we are going to get is a decade; if we fold and if we do not challenge the tax cut proposals and the plan of this administration, the best we will get is not one dollar for investment in children, in education, in health care, in prescription drug costs; and the worst we will get is deficits going up again. I would like to, as a Democratic Senator from Minnesota, make three suggestions: A, we should hold the President and this administration accountable for the words, ``leave no child behind.'' I take that seriously. I don't let anybody get away with saying my goal and my value and my vision is to leave no child behind, when I see only a pittance, if that, of investment in the health and skills and intellect and character of our children so we leave no child behind. B, Democrats ought to be able to present a set of tax cuts which do not provide the vast majority of the benefits to the top 1 or 5 percent of the population. A lot of what President Bush is unfolding this week doesn't add up. You have the waitress, the single parent, making $23,000 a year with two children. She is not helped, because the tax cuts are not refundable. These tax cuts overwhelmingly go to the most affluent and powerful citizens. We should be able to present a clear alternative. Finally, I would be willing to debate anybody, anywhere, anytime, anyplace over tax cuts that go to the very wealthy versus prescription drug costs for elderly people. You don't do that on the cheap. I would be willing to debate anybody on tax cuts that go to wealthy, high- income citizens versus expanding health care coverage for the 44 million people who have no health insurance at all. I would be willing to debate anybody over tax cuts going primarily to wealthy people versus doing more for children, so when they come to kindergarten they really are ready to learn. If we can't stand for these values and can't have this debate, then what in the world do we stand for? One more time, I summarize: The $3.1 trillion becomes about $2.6, $2.7 trillion right away, because we are not going to touch the Medicare trust fund money, nor should we. Then we all know we are going to extend the tax credits. So all of a sudden it is about $2 trillion. And the $1.6 trillion in tax cuts automatically, once we understand we now have to pay the interest that we wouldn't have paid if we were paying down the debt, goes to $2 trillion. Where is going to be the investment in the children? Where is going to be the investment in education? Where is going to be the investment so that we make sure no child is left behind? When are we going to do something about the fact that we have the highest percentage of poor children among all the western European and all the advanced economies in the world? When are we going to do something about the fact that single elderly women also are among the poorest citizens in our country? Where is going to be the investment You don't proclaim the goal of leaving no child behind and then expect to do this on a tin cup budget. That is all we are getting from this President and his priorities. It is time for debate on the floor of the Senate about the priorities of our country. I yield the floor.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I yield myself 10 minutes.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I will say to the majority leader that I think his last set of remarks may be the basis of bipartisanship between the two of us. We will keep this civil. I will also say to the majority leader and others that I can't wait for the debate because he focuses on the $30,000-a-year family. But anybody who looks at the distribution of benefits of President Bush's tax cut plan will see--I don't know--40 percent of the benefit going to the top 1 percent of the top 5 percent, which is ridiculous. It is like Robin Hood in reverse. Yes, we will make sure there is a set of tax credits to go to middle-income and working-income families. Absolutely. I will point out one more time--and I didn't hear the majority leader respond to this at all--I want to hold President Bush accountable for these numbers--a $3.1 trillion non-Social Security surplus becomes 2.6 when you put Medicare trust money aside, which we will do. It becomes $2 trillion when extending tax credits, and we also provide payments to farmers and other people, which we will do without doubt. The tax cuts go from $1.6 trillion to $2 trillion, when you now have to pay the interest on the debt, when you are not paying the debt down, in which case I want to know where are the resources to leave no child behind. I say to the majority leader that I am more than willing to debate after we provide tax cuts for middle-income working families, whether or not we, in fact, provide some benefits so elderly people can afford prescription drugs versus tax cuts for the wealthy, whether we can expand health care coverage versus tax cuts, or whether or not we will live up to the words of leaving no child behind and make investment in child care and in Head Start and in our schools and fund the IDEA program versus tax cuts for the wealthy. I think the message President Bush is trying to convey and the majority leader echoes to the people in the country--I all of a sudden find myself being a fiscal conservative--is that we can do it all. There is no free lunch. We can't do it all. We can't have tax cuts disproportionally to the wealthy, erode the revenue base, and at the same time say we are going to leave no child behind; we are going to make an investment in education; we are going to make an investment in covering prescription drugs for the elderly. We can't do both. The people in the country are smart enough to figure that out, and I hope Democrats will engage this administration. The sooner the better. I don't think we need to wait one more day to have this debate. Senators and President Bush: You cannot proclaim the vision and the value of leaving no child behind and keep this on a tin cup budget. If we are real about this, we will make the investment in the intellect, the skills, and the character of our children. This budget is not real. It does not make that commitment to leaving no child behind. I yield the floor.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank Jay Barth for all of his help in our office.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Jay Barth, who is a fellow in my office, be allowed to have privileges of the floor during the duration of this debate up to the final vote.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I have voted for any number of the President's nominees to serve in our Cabinet, even though I am 100- percent sure I am going to be in disagreement with them on some of the really major public policy questions that face our country. It is very rare that a Cabinet nominee is defeated by the Senate. It does not happen very often. There is a presumption that the President should be allowed to choose his or her people to serve in the Cabinet. In addition, I do know Senator Ashcroft. I respect his religious convictions. I have had personal interaction with him, which I have enjoyed. And if he is confirmed, I will wish him the very best because he will be Attorney General for our country. But there is also a set of other questions that are important to me as a Senator from Minnesota. To be the Attorney General, and to head the Justice Department, is to be the lawyer for all the people in the country. I had a great man who worked for me here who passed away from cancer this last year, Mike Epstein. When I first met Mike, he said to me: I have been in Washington for 30 years, but I still believe in changing the world. I hope we can work together. He came to the Justice Department and worked with Bobby Kennedy, dealing with enforcement of the Civil Rights Act; the Justice Department, dealing with enforcement of the Voting Rights Act. Colleagues, in Minnesota, when we were celebrating the life of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., I was speaking at a gathering. I didn't expect the reaction. I remember a book Dr. King wrote called ``Where Do We Go From Here: Chaos or Community?'' I had this cadence where I said: We have a long ways to go. And in the cadence, I said: We have a long ways to go when people of color are pulled along the side of the road on their way to vote because they are people of color. I could not believe the reaction of the African American community, the Latino community, the Southeast Asian community, and the Native American community. They know that what happened in Florida was wrong. Something went wrong there. And they are very mindful of voting rights, the hate crimes legislation, the Violence Against Women Act, the Church Arson Act. The Attorney General is the person who advises the President on judicial appointments, whether it be to a Federal district court, the court of appeals, or the U.S. Supreme Court. I do not honestly believe John Ashcroft is the right person to be Attorney General for our country. Some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle--I just heard this as I came in, getting ready to speak--have labeled disagreement with this choice and questions that have been raised--I am going to raise civil rights questions; this is my background; this is my life-- as a personal attack on John Ashcroft. I don't see it that way. In fact, I said to John on the telephone: I never will savage you. I don't believe in it. I hate it. Some of my colleagues have spoken on the floor with a considerable amount of eloquence about that. But my baptism to politics was the civil rights movement. I learned from men and women of color--many of them young, and many of them old, and hardly any of them famous, though they should be famous--about the importance of civil rights and human rights. This is the framework I bring to the Senate. This is why I am going to vote no. I don't agree with some of the positions Senator Ashcroft took as a Senator, but that is not the basis of my vote. Some of his views on abortion, to make abortion a crime even in the case of rape and incest, are extreme and harsh. I once said in a TV debate that John Ashcroft gives me cognitive dissonance because I like him as a person and I don't understand how a person whom I like can hold, sometimes, such harsh views. I don't agree with his position on abortion. I don't agree with some of his other positions. It is not his voting record. Without trying to be self-righteous on the floor of the Senate or melodramatic, I have spent hardly any time with groups or organizations except at the beginning when people came by and I said: Please give me everything to read and let me think this through myself. I am troubled by the statements made by John Ashcroft and his role in blatantly distorting the record of Judge White. I am going to say ``blatantly distorting the record'' because I think that is what happened. The evidence is compelling. We heard from Judge White about that as well. To call him a pro-criminal judge on the basis of the decisions he had rendered--I don't want to say it was ``extraordinary''--crossed a line. I have a right as a Senator to say, if John Ashcroft, as Attorney General, with the key position he would be playing in terms of judges and the Federal judiciary, is going to use the same standard and the same methodology he used to oppose Justice White, then a lot of justices, a lot of men and women who could serve our country in the Federal judiciary, will never make it. That is one of the reasons I oppose this nomination. The question was put to John Ashcroft in the committee about his opposition to Jim Hormel: Did he oppose Jim Hormel because he was gay? Senator Ashcroft stated that ``the totality of circumstances suggested that Mr. Hormel would not make a good ambassador.'' What made up that totality? Senator Ashcroft didn't attend Mr. Hormel's hearings. He refused to meet with Mr. Hormel. He never returned any of Mr. Hormel's calls. And in the hearing, John Ashcroft suggested or stated that Mr. Hormel ``recruited him'' to the University of Chicago School of Law. But Mr. Hormel says: I don't ever recall recruiting anybody for the University of Chicago. And he can't remember a single conversation with John Ashcroft over the past 30-some years. John Ashcroft also told us, in the battle over the nomination, that Mr. Hormel, by simply being an openly gay man who is also a civic leader, has ``been a leader in promoting a lifestyle, and the kind of leadership he has exhibited there is likely to be offensive to individuals in the setting in which he is assigned,'' suggesting that Luxembourg, as a Catholic nation, would find it difficult to receive him. The evidence is that Luxembourg openly embraced him. He was a great Ambassador. It is also a questionable assumption, because it is a Catholic country, that Catholics would not embrace a person, would not judge a person by the content of his character. I want to be clear that as a Senator, as I think about who should head the Justice Department and who should be the Attorney General and I think about my own life, when I was teaching, I used to insist that students answer the following question: Why do you think about politics the way you think about politics? Then I never graded their answer. I just wanted them to think about what really shaped their viewpoint. I have been thinking a lot about that in relation to this debate. There are sets of facts and different versions of truth and all the rest. What shapes my viewpoint? I am a product of the civil rights movement. I am not a hero like John Lewis, but I helped. Men and women in the civil rights movement were my teachers. This is a civil rights vote. This is a human rights vote. I know that John and his supporters will say: Judge us by what is in our heart. For people across the country, people of color, people who have a different sexual orientation, they judge you by your actions. They judge you by what you have said. And I believe the Justice Department has to be all about justice. I don't think John Ashcroft is the right person to head this Justice Department. It is not any one thing. I will be honest. I will admit a bias. I don't have a great feeling for Bob Jones University. As long as we are talking about race, they banned dating between students of different races and continue to have a policy that states that gay alumni--yes, former students--should be arrested for trespassing when they step foot on the grounds of their alma mater. I don't have a good feeling for this school. I am speaking within the civil rights and human rights framework. I don't know why John Ashcroft accepted an honorary degree. I don't know why you would want to honor such a school. I don't know why you wouldn't want to renounce all of those policies. It is just one piece of evidence, and I know John has made it clear that he disagrees with some of what the school is about. I don't understand the interview with Southern Partisan magazine. I find it to be bizarre. This is a magazine which goes out of its way not to promote racial reconciliation or healing but just the opposite. I don't understand John Ashcroft's animus toward Ron White or toward Jim Hormel. If it wasn't that, then it probably was some form of political opportunism. I certainly don't understand the association with Southern Partisan magazine and not even being willing to renounce this magazine or acknowledge his error in doing the interview at the recent hearings. I don't know why he refused to sign the pledge that his office would not discriminate in its employment practices based on sexual orientation. It is his first amendment right. The point is, we are talking about somebody to head up the Justice Department. I consider this to be a civil rights vote and a human rights vote. That is why I am voting no. Despite what John Ashcroft said during the hearings about his limited role in the State of Missouri on any number of legal cases dealing with civil rights and human rights, I will discuss his role in opposing what was a voluntary desegregation order. I will highlight the testimony of one who knows John Ashcroft's record in this area best, Bill Taylor. I will highlight Bill Taylor's testimony because I consider him to be a giant. I am proud to say he is one of my teachers. He is a real hero. He is one of those who joined Thurgood Marshall's team in the years just after the Brown decision to work for full implementation of Brown v. Board of Education. Over two decades, he served as the lead counsel for a class of parents and students in the St. Louis case. During the most active part of that time, John Ashcroft was attorney general and Governor of Missouri. Listen to the words of Bill Taylor in his testimony before the Judiciary Committee: I have thought seriously since this nomination about whether Mr. Ashcroft's conduct in the St. Louis case was simply that of a lawyer vigorously defending the interests of the State or whether some of his actions went over the line of strong advocacy and reflect on his qualifications to serve as Attorney General of the United States. My conclusion is that the latter is the case. I believe that in his tenure as Attorney General, Mr. Ashcroft used the court system to delay and obstruct the development and implementation of a desegregation settlement that was agreed to by all major parties except the State. In so doing, he sought to prevent measures that were a major step toward racial reconciliation in an area where there has been much conflict, and to thwart a remedy that ultimately proved to be a very important vehicle for educational progress. John Ashcroft massively resisted this desegregation effort. I think the most troubling aspect of the Missouri school desegregation issue, to me, is that John Ashcroft consistently used his fervent opposition to the Federal judge's desegregation order as a political issue in the campaign. I want to be real clear about it because I am not going to get into any pitched, acrimonious battle with anyone here on the floor of the Senate. But the fact that I talk about his resistance to this voluntary desegregation case is that I am so troubled by the ways in which he went after Justice White; the fact that I talk about Bob Jones University and Southern Partisan magazine is not because I am interested in any personal attack. I already said I don't understand how it is that a person I like so much personally can hold such harsh views. But he is the lawyer for all the people of the United States of America if he is Attorney General. He will head up the Justice Department. This is the Voting Rights Act. This is the Civil Rights Act. This is the Violence Against Women Act. This is all about whether or not you can have a man or a woman--in this particular case a man--who will head the Justice Department and will lead our country down the path of racial reconciliation. We have a huge divide in the United State of America on the central question of race. We have a question before us as to whether or not we have a man who can lead the Justice Department for justice for all people and who will be a leader when it comes to basic human rights questions. He is not the right choice. I thank the Judiciary Committee, Democrats and Republicans alike, for the way in which they conducted the hearings. I say to John Ashcroft, whom I am sure is viewing this debate and listening to all of us, that if confirmed, again, I wish him the very best. He will be the Attorney General for all of us in our country. But I also would like to say, to me, this is, in my 10\1/2\ years in the Senate, as close as I can remember coming to a basic civil rights vote, a basic human rights vote, and I cannot support John Ashcroft to be Attorney General and to head the Justice Department; not on the basis of everything I believe in about civil rights and human rights; not on the basis of the younger years of my life; not on the basis of being a United States Senator from the State of Minnesota who had Senator Hubert Humphrey, who gave one of the greatest civil rights speeches ever at the 1948 Democratic Party Convention. I am in a State which is a civil rights State. I am from a State which is a human rights State which passed an ordnance that said there shall be no discrimination against people, not only by race but sexual orientation, for housing, employment--across the board. Therefore, I vote the tradition of my State; I vote my own life's work ``no'' to this nomination. I yield the floor.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I say to my colleague from New Hampshire, I think there is a distinction between what I hope will be substantive remarks on my part in opposition to Ms. Norton to be Secretary of the Interior and personal attack. I am a Senator from Minnesota. I am from a State where we love our lakes and rivers and streams, the environment. My opposition to Ms. Norton to be Secretary of the Interior does not mean ipso facto that what I say represents any kind of personal attack. It is simply a very different assessment of whether or not she should in fact be the Secretary of the Interior for the United States of America. I have a lot of policy disagreements with Ms. Norton. I have a lot of policy is agreements with any number of the President's nominees to serve in our Cabinet, but almost all of them I will support because there is a presumption that the President should be able to nominate his or her people. On the environmental front, as long as I have the floor of the Senate--and I hope I am wrong--I say today that I believe the record of this administration will amount to a rather direct assault on environmental protection. I think that would be wrong for the country. This is not a debate about ANWR, the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, not today. My disagreement with Ms. Norton or the President is not the reason why I oppose her to be Secretary of the Interior. Part of the debate we will have in this country has to do with this nexus between the way we consume, the way we produce energy, and the environment. I see an administration that is an oil interest administration, and the focus will be more and more on oil, barreling down a hard path energy policy, with fossil fuels, environmental degradation getting lipservice but not investments in clean technologies, renewables, safe energy. The reason I oppose not Gale Norton as a person but Gale Norton to be Secretary of the Interior is because I have doubts about her ability to fairly enforce existing environmental and land use laws. That is why I oppose this nomination. The Secretary of the Interior is the principal steward of nearly one- third of our Nation's land. The Secretary is the chief trustee of much of our Nation's energy and mineral wealth. The Secretary of the Interior is the principal guardian of our national parks, our revered historic sites, and our fish and wildlife. It is the job of the Secretary of the Interior to protect this precious legacy and to pass it on to future generations. As Catholic bishops said 15 or 20 years ago in their wonderful pastoral statement, we are strangers in this land. We ought to make that better for our children and our grandchildren. Ms. Norton has had significant positions--government positions and in the private sector. It is her record in these positions--both in government and private sector roles--that are the most troubling to me. In fact, her record indicates that she may not be able to enforce environmental protections and ensure the preservation of our public lands. There is no doubt that Ms. Norton did a good job in the confirmation hearings. She pledged her past views, and she is certainly committed to enforcing the laws of the Interior Department. I commend her for her testimony. It is my sincere hope that she will live up to these commitments. However, I think the Senate and Senators are compelled to view her record not in terms of 2 days of testimony but the totality of her record. The totality of her record is one that I believe points to her inability to strike the very difficult and the very delicate balance between conservation and development. As a private attorney, Ms. Norton has taken positions that indicate a strong opposition to the very environmental protections which, if confirmed, she would be asked to defend. For instance, she has argued that all or parts of the Clean Air Act are unconstitutional--taking a State rights view. She has argued that the Surface Mining Act, which is all about protecting workers' coal dust level, which is all about occupational health and safety protection, which is all about the problems of strip-mining and the environmental degradation that it causes many communities in Appalachia, again, unconstitutional. She has argued that provisions of the Superfund law that require polluting industries to pay for cleanup of waste sites should be eliminated. Ms. Norton has testified that implementation of the National Environmental Policy Act--NEPA--is something that should be essentially devolved to the State level, that she would prefer not to conduct Federal land environmental reviews. I am sorry; when it comes to this most precious heritage, when it comes to the land, when it comes to our environment, when it comes to something that is so precious for not just us but our children and grandchildren, it is not just a matter of State options. We are a national community, and we have made a commitment to environmental protection. I believe the actions Ms. Norton has taken and the positions she has taken in the past would make it impossible for her not only to enforce these laws but to be a strong steward for the environment. In 1997, Ms. Norton argued that the global warming problem didn't exist. That is, of course, in contradiction to the international science community. I know in her testimony she essentially said she now takes a different position--I appreciate that--as Colorado attorney general. But I also have questions in my own mind given the position she has taken about what kind of steward for the environment she would be. As Colorado attorney general, Ms. Norton argued against the Endangered Species Act, saying it was unconstitutional. As attorney general, Ms. Norton supported measures that would relax otherwise applicable environmental safeguards if businesses volunteered to regulate themselves. And regardless of the damage, regardless of the effect on the public, regardless of the effect on people, these companies would be shielded from any liability. Her position is troubling to me because Ms. Norton might be willing to permit private companies that operate on or near public lands to regulate themselves. As Colorado attorney general, in the case of one mining company acting under self- regulation, there were violations and massive contamination of the Alamos River. My colleague from New Hampshire said she took action, but it was only after the Federal Government was forced to step in and say you must take action. Indeed, the Federal Government was forced to step in and spend $150 million in emergency cleanup of the river. In addition, there is a case of citizens living downwind from a mill that had been emitting pollution for months. Again, the Secretary of the Interior refused to take action, and again the Federal Government was forced to intervene--again resulting in a record $37 million in fines against the company. Since leaving her job as AG in 1999, Ms. Norton has been lobbying Congress and the Colorado State Legislature on lead paint issues in behalf of the NL Industries, a Houston company formerly known as the National Lead Company. This company has been named as a defendant involving 75 Superfund or other toxic waste sites in addition to dozens of lawsuits involving children allegedly poisoned by lead paint. The only thing that I can say is I understand Ms. Norton's right to work for whatever company she wants to, but it does not give me very much confidence that she is the right person to be Secretary of the Interior--a major position of environmental leadership in the U.S. Government. After reviewing her record of 20 years, I believe Ms. Norton has not demonstrated the required balance needed to be a guardian of our national heritage and a trustee of our national lands. Furthermore, she has shown a career pattern of opposing environmental protection, which I think speaks to her ability--or, I say to my colleague from Massachusetts, her inability to carry out the requirements of Secretary of the Interior. I appreciate her testimony to the Energy Committee, and I take that in good faith. However, I cannot ignore her resistance to prosecute the industry in order to protect Colorado's land and people while serving as attorney general. As Secretary of the Interior, Ms. Norton would be charged with balancing the interests of industry against conservation. In my view, her record strongly indicates she will heavily tilt that balance away from conservation, away from preservation of the environment, away from environmental protection, away from being the trustee for the land, and away from understanding what a sacred duty we have. It is a value question to make this Earth a better Earth and hand it on to our children and grandchildren. I find all of that unacceptable, and that is why I oppose this nomination. I hope other Senators will oppose this nomination as well. Might I ask how much time I have remaining?

Mr. WELLSTONE. I yield the floor, and I also say to my colleague from Massachusetts that I would be pleased to yield the additional time to the Senator from Massachusetts.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time allotted to Senator Feingold with respect to the Norton nomination be provided to Senator Kerry.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I believe I have 15 minutes to speak on the Norton nomination.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I rise today along with Senators Harkin, Feingold, Conrad, and Dorgan to introduce legislation that would make permanent Chapter 12 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code. Chapter 12, the Chapter of the Bankruptcy Code designated for farmers, provides critical protection for family farmers who find themselves in desperate economic circumstances. Ideally, the goal of federal farm policy should be to sustain the ability of family farmers to produce and sell a competitive product, to preserve healthy and viable rural communities and to keep family farmers out of bankruptcy. However, when farmers are forced to seek bankruptcy protection, Chapter 12, because it is tailored specifically to farmers, often allows the farmer to keep his or her farm while reorganizing debt and making payments to creditors. Extension of Chapter 12 is made all the more urgent by the current state of the farm economy. Prices are now so low that many family farmers are lucky to stay in business as market prices are lower than their cost of production. The value of field crops is expected to have been more than 24 percent lower in 2000 than it was in 1996--42 percent lower for wheat, 39 percent lower for corn, and 26 percent lower for soybeans. But farmers' expenses are not falling by the same amount. In fact, they are not falling at all. Farmers cannot maintain cash flow if their selling prices are falling through the floor while their buying prices are shooting through the roof. Chapter 12 expired on June 30th of last year. Efforts last year to extend it or to make it permanent were held hostage to controversial bankruptcy ``reform'' legislation and, as a result, Congress adjourned in December without taking any action to reinstate this critical safety net. This legislation would make Chapter 12 a permanent part of the code, eliminating the need for future extensions. It is also retroactive to July 1, 2000. I hope that in the 107th Congress we can stop using farmers as pawns in the debate over bankruptcy reform. Permanent Chapter 12 is completely noncontroversial. We could pass this bill by unanimous consent tomorrow, and we should. I note that a nearly identical measure has been introduced in the House by Congressman Nick Smith. Given that the House last year passed two chapter 12 extensions which the Senate declined to act on, if the Senate this year took leadership on this issue and passed this bill, the House would swiftly follow. Farmers have been without this safety net long enough, and I urge my colleagues to take action by passing this measure.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I rise today along with Senators Harkin, Feingold, Conrad, and Dorgan to introduce legislation that would make permanent Chapter 12 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code. Chapter 12, the Chapter of the Bankruptcy Code designated for farmers, provides critical protection for family farmers who find themselves in desperate economic circumstances. Ideally, the goal of federal farm policy should be to sustain the ability of family farmers to produce and sell a competitive product, to preserve healthy and viable rural communities and to keep family farmers out of bankruptcy. However, when farmers are forced to seek bankruptcy protection, Chapter 12, because it is tailored specifically to farmers, often allows the farmer to keep his or her farm while reorganizing debt and making payments to creditors. Extension of Chapter 12 is made all the more urgent by the current state of the farm economy. Prices are now so low that many family farmers are lucky to stay in business as market prices are lower than their cost of production. The value of field crops is expected to have been more than 24 percent lower in 2000 than it was in 1996--42 percent lower for wheat, 39 percent lower for corn, and 26 percent lower for soybeans. But farmers' expenses are not falling by the same amount. In fact, they are not falling at all. Farmers cannot maintain cash flow if their selling prices are falling through the floor while their buying prices are shooting through the roof. Chapter 12 expired on June 30th of last year. Efforts last year to extend it or to make it permanent were held hostage to controversial bankruptcy ``reform'' legislation and, as a result, Congress adjourned in December without taking any action to reinstate this critical safety net. This legislation would make Chapter 12 a permanent part of the code, eliminating the need for future extensions. It is also retroactive to July 1, 2000. I hope that in the 107th Congress we can stop using farmers as pawns in the debate over bankruptcy reform. Permanent Chapter 12 is completely noncontroversial. We could pass this bill by unanimous consent tomorrow, and we should. I note that a nearly identical measure has been introduced in the House by Congressman Nick Smith. Given that the House last year passed two chapter 12 extensions which the Senate declined to act on, if the Senate this year took leadership on this issue and passed this bill, the House would swiftly follow. Farmers have been without this safety net long enough, and I urge my colleagues to take action by passing this measure.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to make the Violence Against Women Office a permanent office in the Department of Justice. After the passage of the Violence Against Women Act in 1994, the U.S. Department of Justice administratively created the Violence Against Women Office. Over time, the office's duties and responsibilities have included administering Violence Against Women Act grant programs, providing technical assistance and training to improve justice system responses in communities across the country, and providing leadership in developing the Administration's policies on violence against women. Led by a Presidentially-appointed Director, the Violence Against Women Office has had an enormous impact on social attitudes in this country about the nature and effects of domestic violence, sexual assault, and stalking. As a result of the office's high profile work, the urgent issue of violence against women has come into much sharper public focus. Making permanent the Violence Against Women Office in the Justice Department is necessary to extend VAWA's benefits to all corners of the country. The office has been the leader in promoting a multi- disciplinary, community-coordinated system response to violence against women. Additionally, it has a specialized knowledge of the best practices in the field to ensure that the grant funds are well utilized. A statutory mandate would guarantee that the Violence Against Women Office will continue this specialized work in future Administrations, ensuring that Congress' goals regarding domestic violence, sexual assault, and stalking will be carried out with the same professional expertise that we have grown to appreciate over the past six years. This office is needed now more than ever. Violence against women continues to ravage our society. In my own state, 40 women were murdered by their partners in the year 2000 alone. This is more than in any other year on record. Nationally, a woman is battered every 15 seconds and 25 percent of women surveyed reported rape or physical abuse by a current or former spouse, partner or date. The effects of these crimes extend far beyond the moment when they occur. One of the most compelling marks that violence against women leaves is on our children. It is estimated that between 3 and 10 million children witness violence in the home each year, and much of this violence is persistent. Studies indicate that children who witness their fathers beating their mothers suffer emotional problems, including slowed development and feelings of hopelessness, depression, and anxiety. Many of these children exhibit more aggressive, anti-social, and fearful behaviors. Even one episode of violence can produce post-traumatic stress disorder in children. It is indisputable that even one incident of abuse inflicts a pain on our children that is unimaginable and often unending. It is also indisputable that domestic violence is devastating to the economic and physical well-being of women and their families. For example, a study reported on in the St. Paul Pioneer Press found that 57 percent of the women surveyed said they had been threatened to the point that they were afraid to go to school or work. Thirty percent were fired or left a job because of abuse. 25 percent of homeless people on any given night are women and children fleeing domestic abuse. 800,000 women per year seek medical care as a result of injuries sustained in a sexual or physical assault. As this research indicates, violence against women permeates our society. It feeds on itself and it repeats itself generation after generation. People who try to keep family violence quiet and hidden behind the walls of the home ignore its tragic echoes in our schools, in the workplace and on the streets. The Federal Government must always play a role in combating this insidious epidemic. In the fight against domestic violence, we are at the starting gate. Domestic Violence is not going away and we as policy makers need to keep efforts to combat violence against women at the forefront of our work. With the Violence Against Women Office's leadership, we will continue to work together to bring justice to millions of women who suffer at the hands of abusers everywhere. Through its work, we will ensure our commitment to arrive at a day when many fewer women are threatened in our schools, in our businesses, on our streets and in our homes. I urge my colleagues to support this critical office and the critical role we in the Federal Government can continue to play in the fight against domestic violence, and I urge them to cosponsor this important measure.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to make the Violence Against Women Office a permanent office in the Department of Justice. After the passage of the Violence Against Women Act in 1994, the U.S. Department of Justice administratively created the Violence Against Women Office. Over time, the office's duties and responsibilities have included administering Violence Against Women Act grant programs, providing technical assistance and training to improve justice system responses in communities across the country, and providing leadership in developing the Administration's policies on violence against women. Led by a Presidentially-appointed Director, the Violence Against Women Office has had an enormous impact on social attitudes in this country about the nature and effects of domestic violence, sexual assault, and stalking. As a result of the office's high profile work, the urgent issue of violence against women has come into much sharper public focus. Making permanent the Violence Against Women Office in the Justice Department is necessary to extend VAWA's benefits to all corners of the country. The office has been the leader in promoting a multi- disciplinary, community-coordinated system response to violence against women. Additionally, it has a specialized knowledge of the best practices in the field to ensure that the grant funds are well utilized. A statutory mandate would guarantee that the Violence Against Women Office will continue this specialized work in future Administrations, ensuring that Congress' goals regarding domestic violence, sexual assault, and stalking will be carried out with the same professional expertise that we have grown to appreciate over the past six years. This office is needed now more than ever. Violence against women continues to ravage our society. In my own state, 40 women were murdered by their partners in the year 2000 alone. This is more than in any other year on record. Nationally, a woman is battered every 15 seconds and 25 percent of women surveyed reported rape or physical abuse by a current or former spouse, partner or date. The effects of these crimes extend far beyond the moment when they occur. One of the most compelling marks that violence against women leaves is on our children. It is estimated that between 3 and 10 million children witness violence in the home each year, and much of this violence is persistent. Studies indicate that children who witness their fathers beating their mothers suffer emotional problems, including slowed development and feelings of hopelessness, depression, and anxiety. Many of these children exhibit more aggressive, anti-social, and fearful behaviors. Even one episode of violence can produce post-traumatic stress disorder in children. It is indisputable that even one incident of abuse inflicts a pain on our children that is unimaginable and often unending. It is also indisputable that domestic violence is devastating to the economic and physical well-being of women and their families. For example, a study reported on in the St. Paul Pioneer Press found that 57 percent of the women surveyed said they had been threatened to the point that they were afraid to go to school or work. Thirty percent were fired or left a job because of abuse. 25 percent of homeless people on any given night are women and children fleeing domestic abuse. 800,000 women per year seek medical care as a result of injuries sustained in a sexual or physical assault. As this research indicates, violence against women permeates our society. It feeds on itself and it repeats itself generation after generation. People who try to keep family violence quiet and hidden behind the walls of the home ignore its tragic echoes in our schools, in the workplace and on the streets. The Federal Government must always play a role in combating this insidious epidemic. In the fight against domestic violence, we are at the starting gate. Domestic Violence is not going away and we as policy makers need to keep efforts to combat violence against women at the forefront of our work. With the Violence Against Women Office's leadership, we will continue to work together to bring justice to millions of women who suffer at the hands of abusers everywhere. Through its work, we will ensure our commitment to arrive at a day when many fewer women are threatened in our schools, in our businesses, on our streets and in our homes. I urge my colleagues to support this critical office and the critical role we in the Federal Government can continue to play in the fight against domestic violence, and I urge them to cosponsor this important measure.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, first let me make it clear I am going to support Governor Thompson to be Secretary of Health and Human Services. I do not intend to oppose him, and I look forward to working with him. When he appeared before the HELP Committee, we had a spirited discussion. I think there are many areas where we can work together. The Secretary of Health and Human Services is very important and there are a lot of areas that are critical to the lives of people in Minnesota where this Secretary is going to be in a key role. I talked to Governor Thompson, soon to be Secretary Thompson, about having some parity in ending the discrimination in mental health coverage. We talked also about trying to end discrimination when it comes to substance abuse coverage. We talked about the importance of the strong support that Secretary Shalala showed for the Violence Against Women Act and the steps we need to take to reduce that violence. I think Senator Harkin asked the question about stem cell research, how important it is not only for people struggling with Parkinson's but for people struggling with other diseases. I thought we covered a lot of issues that are extremely important. I believe Secretary-to-be Thompson will be an important leader in these areas. I want to talk about one area of disagreement, though not a lot, which is why I want to take some time on the floor. It is an appeal to Governor Thompson. It is an appeal to colleagues. It is something I intend to be vigilant about as a Senator from Minnesota. It has to do with TANF or what we call welfare reform. As my colleague pointed out, Montana has been viewed as a State which is a leader in welfare reform--as a model, by some, for welfare reform. But what troubles me is that all too often we define reform as reduction of the caseload. None of us ever intended that welfare reform should be equated, ipso facto, with just the number of people who no longer receive welfare. The question was whether or not these families, almost all of them headed by women with children, all of them low- income, were able to move from welfare to economic self-sufficiency. It just does not suffice to say that in Wisconsin or Minnesota or Delaware or Montana or anywhere in the country, TANF has been a huge success because we have cut the rolls by 50, 70, or 80 percent. The question is whether or not we have reduced the poverty. I raised these figures during our hearing. It is not really just about Wisconsin, which is a State I dearly love, and not to talk about a Governor in the negative who, frankly, has put more investment into child care and job training and health coverage than many Governors have, but it is interesting and important and I asked the Governor about this. When it comes to infant mortality, in 1996-1998 Wisconsin had the highest Hispanic infant mortality rate in the country and the fourth highest black infant mortality rate in the United States of America. I believe the figures in the early 1990s were different. Wisconsin really ranked well. They did well compared with other States in the country. When it comes to neonatal mortality rates, in 1989-1991 Wisconsin had the seventh best black infant neonatality rate. By 1997- 1998, it had the fifth worst neonatal infant mortality rate in the United States. Wisconsin lagged dead last in the country for Hispanic neonatal infant mortality--double the U.S. average in 1996- 1998. Why do I say this? Not to bash away at this Governor, who has been one of the leaders and has been willing to make more of the up-front investment, but to point out to colleagues that when you ask this Governor and other Governors--there is at least one former Governor here who might disagree with me--about welfare reform, they will say it has been a great success. Then you ask: Do you have the empirical data? Can you tell me where are these families? Do the mothers have jobs? Are they living wage jobs? What is the child care situation? Or, in the United States of America post-1996, do you know that there has been a 30-percent decline in food stamp participation, which is the major safety net program for poor children in America, to make sure they do not go without food? Ask what has happened. What has happened is we have become so anti-welfare that we are neglecting to tell people they are eligible for some of these benefits. So I want to make the case today not against Governor Thompson, but that even in Wisconsin, which is recognized as a State where you had a Governor who was willing to make more of the up-front investment, you have had a situation where there is some troubling data when it comes to the infant mortality rate, especially for children of color. I will tell you something. I believe all of us have been guilty of not wanting to look at the data. Sometimes we do not know what we do not want to know. What I want to know and what I want to know from this administration is, as the TANF bill, welfare, comes up to reauthorization: Have we just dramatically reduced the rolls or have we really reduced the poverty? I can go through studies that will tell you that, in the majority of cases, these women do not have living-wage jobs. I can tell you too many of these families have lost medical assistance. I can tell you, based upon a Berkeley-Yale study, that the child care situation is really quite dangerous and inadequate. And I can tell you that just because you have single parents and just because they have children and just because they are scapegoated and just because it is easy to be anti-welfare, we better make sure in this reauthorization that we do it right. That is why I speak because this Governor, this Secretary to be, is going to be playing a critical role. I will just conclude, since I do not have a lot of time, by showing a couple of charts which I have which make my point. I asked the Governor about this, I say to my colleague from Montana, during the hearing. If you look at President Bush's proposed tax cut, which ultimately we are talking about $1.6 trillion in tax cuts over the next 10 years, and you add to that interest, and you add to that Pentagon expenditures, and you add to that what we must put into the Social Security trust fund, and you add to that what we must spend for Medicare, do you know how much money you are going to have for children, for job training, for child care, for education and all the rest? Zero dollars. So I would say to Governor Thompson, and I say to this administration: How are we going to do welfare reform right so we do make sure that women and poor children do not pay the price? Where is the investment in child care going to be? Where is the investment in education going to be? Where is the investment in job training going to be? I do not see any dollars for it. That is what I am worried about. We all say we care so much about the elderly. I have two parents I desperately wanted to stay at home and not be in a nursing home. They both had Parkinson's disease. Where is the money going to come from for the investment to make sure our parents and grandparents can live at home in normal circumstances with dignity, with $1.6 trillion in tax cuts. Finally--and this goes way beyond Governor Thompson--no child left behind? This is President Bush's education reform. I have heard some language about this on the floor today. Here is where we are heading in my not, I will admit, so humble opinion. Putting vouchers aside, which is a nonstarter, you are going to have mandatory testing in every State when it comes to title I children, low-income children, low-income neighborhoods, low-income schools. In the school districts, they are going to hire consultants to teach teachers how to teach for the tests. The kids are going to have consultants to teach them how to take the tests. It is going to be drill education. It is going to be educationally deadening. That is what is going on in the country. And do you know something else? We are setting up all these kids and all these teachers--I have two children to teach--and we are going to set up all these schools for failure because the accountability does not stop at the school door. What about us, Democrats and Republicans, and what about President Bush? How can you leave no child behind when you have $1.6 trillion in tax cuts which erodes the revenue base and makes it impossible to expand funding for Head Start, child care, the title I program, and the IDEA program, which is nowhere fully funded. This is not a step forward. It is a great leap sideways. This is a great leap backwards. Fannie Lou Hamer, a great civil rights leader, once uttered the immortal words: I'm sick and tired of being sick and tired. I am going to make a fairly angry statement today: I am sick and tired of playing symbolic politics with children's lives. If you want to have children pass these tests, first, do not rely on one standardized test; have multiple measures. Then you make the investment in these children so every child has an opportunity to achieve, do well, and pass tests. This cannot be done. You cannot ``leave no child behind'' on a tin- cup budget. I want to know whether this administration is serious about these investments. I will wait to see the budget, and I hope Democrats, if this administration wants to govern at the center of children's lives, and it wants to make this investment so these kids come to kindergarten ready to learn, I say to the Presiding Officer, I am willing to work together. If this administration does not do that and just have these tests, then all we have done is set these children, these teachers, and these schools up for failure. It will be cynical, it will be counterproductive, and as a Senator from Minnesota, I will draw the line, and I hope other Senators will as well. I yield the floor.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, as it turns out, I will be brief, too. It turns out I will take only about 10 minutes, 15 at the most.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I apologize. I thought I had some time reserved.

Mr. WELLSTONE

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

Mr. WELLSTONE. The Senate is in morning business?