Paul Wellstone

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. WELLSTONE

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to speak about two provisions of great concern to my state of Minnesota. While this conference report clearly missed the opportunity to make a historic, long term, commitment to our environmental heritage, I rise in support of this legislation because it does represent an important first step in many conservation accounts, and includes vital funding to restore Minnesota's National Forests. First of all, I want to make clear that I am disappointed that the full Conservation and Reinvestment Act, CARA, was not included in this Interior Appropriations bill. CARA, as reported out of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, is landmark legislation that would commit $3 billion annually for 15 years to conservation and natural resource protection. CARA would provide $37.4 million of stable funding annually to the conservation and protection of Minnesota's natural resources. However the compromise in this bill does not reflect the spirit or intent of the full CARA bill. First of all this Conference report does not guarantee multiple year funding for the states, which was the entire premise of CARA. When it comes to protecting our coastlines (on the North Shore in Minnesota) and open spaces (in Northern Minnesota), expanding our urban parks (in the metro Twin Cities area), or investing in wildlife conservation, the annual appropriation approach has proven not to work in the past and is unlikely to work in the future. In addition, the report does not include dedicated funding for wildlife conservation programs, which puts Minnesota's wildlife conservation needs in competition with other state conservation programs, and makes it possible that Minnesota would receive no funds for wildlife preservation from this legislation. While, overall I am encouraged that this legislation more than doubles conservation funding from the $742 million in the current fiscal year to $1.6 billion in FY 2000, we should not loose sight of the fact that this conference report is clearly no substitute for a full funded CARA bill. On a related matter, I am pleased the conference committee has restored the balance of the Forest Service's request for Minnesota's National Forests. During consideration of the Interior Appropriations bill, Senators Gorton and Byrd agreed to my amendment to include $7.2 million in additional emergency funds for Minnesota's National Forests. And today the Senate will take an important step that will restore the balance of emergency funds requested earlier this year by the Superior, Chippewa and Chequamegon National Forests' for blowdown recovery efforts. Furthermore, this legislation includes an important regular, FY 2001 appropriation for the Superior National Forest, that my colleague from Minnesota and I were able to work on together. These monies would be available to the Forest Service next year and are vital to continued recovery efforts in northern Minnesota. These national forests bore the brunt of a massive once-in-a-thousand year wind and rain storm that devastated parts of northern Minnesota on July 4, 1999. The storm damaged over 300,000 acres in seven counties, including as much as 70 percent of the trees in our national forests, and washed out numerous roads. The damage caused by this storm has severely hindered the U.S. Forest Service's ability to responsibly manage the Chippewa and Superior National Forests. The most troubling aspect of this storm for the people of northern Minnesota is the continued extreme risk of a catastrophic fire resulting from the tremendous amount of downed and dead timber. Funding provided to the Forest Service through this legislation will be used for immediate and future recovery efforts, and to reduce the threat of a major wildland fire. The storm has changed affected portions of the forests for years to come and has created new risks and experiences for visitors and residents. Since July 4th, the Superior and Chippewa National Forests officials have been working with state, county, and local officials on storm recovery activities and planning to meet future needs. Immediately after the storm the Forest Service, in conjunction with State, County and local governments began a search and rescue operation that lasted for 15 days from July 4 to July 19, 1999. Fortunately not a single life was lost in the storm, however there were 20 medical evacuations from the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness, BWCAW. The most severe case was a broken neck. In addition, the forest Service conducted a search of 2,200 camp sights in the BWCAW to ensure no one was trapped. And finally USFS crews cleared approx. 200 miles of roads, and reconstructed 6 miles of emergency roads. Once the emergency search and rescue was completed, the U.S. Forest Service turned their attention to reducing hazards that could negatively affect visitors, residents and local businesses that depend on the BWCAW and the National Forests. The Forest Service brought in 191 people including an administrative team and several crews from across the country to return facilities to a safe condition so they could be reopened and used during the rest of the year. And now the Superior National Forest is proposing to reduce the risk of fire escaping the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness, BWCAW, by using prescribed burning within the wilderness. The 1.1 million-acre BWCAW, located in northeastern Minnesota adjacent to the Canadian border, is one of the most heavily used wildernesses in the United States. The proposal is to reduce the increased risk of wildfire associated with the July 4, 1999, storm. The proposed action is to treat approximately 47,000 to 81,000 acres of the wilderness with prescribed fire over a five to six year time period. The goal of this project is to improve public safety by reducing the potential for high intensity wildland fires to spread from the BWCAW into areas of intermingled ownership, which include homes, cabins, resorts and other improvements, or across the international border into Canada. This will be accomplished in a manner which is sensitive to ecological and wilderness values, and protects fire personnel and BWCAW visitor safety during implementation. While the Forest Service has been engaged in this work for many months, it is clear that much is yet to be done, and that it is going to take many years to dig out from under the storm and to restore the forest to a more normal and healthy state. However this cannot happen without adequate funding. This is a victory for all of Minnesota, and I am grateful to my colleagues for their support. I am very pleased that the Senate approved the remainder of these badly needed funds today, especially for the people of northern Minnesota, who cannot wait.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, it has been more than a year since the Columbine tragedy, but still this Republican Congress refuses to act on sensible gun legislation. Since Columbine, thousands of Americans have been killed by gunfire. Until we act, Democrats in the Senate will read the names of some of those who have lost their lives to gun violence in the past year, and we will continue to do so every day that the Senate is in session. In the name of those who died, we will continue this fight. Following are the names of some of the people who were killed by gunfire one year ago today. October 5, 1999: Norman P. Blasco, 47, Chicago, IL; Guy Colbert, 25, Detroit, MI; Daniel Galloway, 39, San Antonio, TX; Justin Eric Googenrand, 23, St. Paul, MN; Denise Long, 41, Nashville, TN; Shawndell Mosely, 27, Memphis, TN; Donald Roper, 34, Oakland, CA; and Theodore Slater, 87, Toledo, OH. One of the victims of gun violence I mentioned, 41-year-old Denise Long of Nashville, was shot and killed accidentally by a 22-year-old co-worker who pulled out a handgun and dropped it on the floor. Her co- worker did not have a permit to carry a handgun. She also did not have permission to have the gun at their place of work. We cannot sit back and allow such senseless gun violence to continue. The deaths of these people are a reminder to all of us that we need to enact sensible gun legislation now.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent Evan Mathiason and Daniel Lopez, interns in my office, be granted the privilege of the floor today during Senate deliberations.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I came to the floor to support my colleague, the Senator from Iowa, and to speak for a couple of minutes about Bonnie Campbell. I believe Bonnie Campbell would be the second woman to serve on the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. Dianne Murphy from Minnesota is the first. Bonnie Campbell has done a lot of good work, but most important is her record at the Justice Department in the violence against women office. I come here to speak about this woman's magnificent work. Bonnie Campbell has probably more than any single individual made the most difference when it came to reducing violence and trying to end some of the violence in families; unfortunately, most of it directed against women and children. About every 13 seconds, a woman is battered in our country. A home should be a safe place. Somewhere between 3 million and 10 million witness this in their homes. Bonnie Campbell has visited Minnesota. I have seen her speak with very quiet eloquence. I cannot say enough about the magnificent work she has done. As attorney general in Iowa, I think she passed the first anti-stalking law in the State. She is well known in Iowa. She is well known throughout the United States of America. She is a skillful lawyer. She would be a great judge. She is extremely important when it comes to being a voice for families in this country. She has done probably some of the best work that any individual could possibly do in this incredibly important area of reducing violence in this country. There is way too much violence--especially directed at women and children. I cannot for the life of me understand why we have been waiting almost 7 months or thereabouts for this nomination to move through the Senate. Minnesota is covered by the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. Dianne Murphy is from the State of Minnesota. She was the first woman to serve on this court. She is a great judge. Bonnie Campbell would be a great judge. We need her on this court. We need a judge who understands the concerns and circumstances of too many women's lives and too many children's lives in this country. We need a judge such as Bonnie Campbell who has such a distinguished background and such a distinguished career. We need a judge on the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals like Bonnie Campbell with such a proven record of public service. I can't find anything in her background, I can't find anything in her record, I can't find anything about her which would make her anything other than 100 percent eminently qualified to serve on this court of appeals. I share in the indignation that my colleague from Iowa has expressed. There is no excuse to hold this nomination for one day longer. I think it is shameful that, in the Senate, really good people who have so much to offer, who could do such good--in this particular case, at the Eighth Circuit of Appeals--find themselves blocked for no good reason. I heard Senator Harkin say he thought this was going to come back to ``bite.'' I hope it does. It is true; most of the people in the country are not so directly connected to this process of how we do confirmations of judicial appointments. We have had Senator Leahy doing yeoman work, and there are other Senators who have spoken. Senator Leahy provides the leadership. The more people learn about a person of the caliber of Bonnie Campbell--and as a man, I care a lot about how we can reduce this violence in families, how we can reduce the violence in homes--the more people hear about this, the more outraged they will be, and for good reason. I know it is asking too much, but I want to see a little bit more fairness. I want to see an end to this blocking of good people who could do good work and could help so much. Bonnie Campbell is a perfect example. We shouldn't be delaying this nomination one day. But we are. I just want to express my support for Bonnie Campbell. I yield the floor.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, S. 2045 and the Lott amendment would raise the H-1B visa cap for highly skilled workers, and there seems to be considerable support on both sides of the aisle for raising this cap. Much has been said about the shortage of skilled workers for the information technology industry. In my State of Minnesota, the Minnesota Department of Economic Security has said that over the next decade, the industry will need about 8,800 more skilled workers, but at the same time they see only about 1,000 workers a year being trained for such jobs. I am sympathetic to what the business community is saying in Minnesota and around the country. But I think there is a right way and a wrong way to raise the H-1B visa cap. I rise to speak about what I think would be the right way. The only way we can do it the right way is if we are able to bring amendments to the floor to improve this bill. That is how you are a good Senator representing people in your State. One amendment would call for more resources for high-skilled training for workers in our country, for men and women who want nothing more than to be able to obtain a living wage job, earn a decent standard of living, take care of their families. We ought to make sure that there is a significant investment of resources for such skill development and job training. The Kennedy amendment would have done that. We are not able to do that because we are shut out from amendments. If we are going to raise the H-1B visa cap, we ought to make sure that those workers with more advanced skills that Americans could not obtain the training for right away--that is to say, workers who have a PhD or a master's degree--would be the ones who, first of all, would be coming to our country from other countries. That way, you make sure working people in our country who can easily be trained for these jobs are not shut out. My understanding is that Senator Kennedy will be offering a carve-out amendment after the cloture vote. Then there is rural America. The Center for Rural Affairs, located in Nebraska, came out with a study that one-third of households in rural counties in a six-State region, including Minnesota, have annual incomes of less than $15,000 a year. Information technology companies say we need skilled workers. People in rural America have a great work ethic. Farmers and other rural citizens tell me: Paul, we would like nothing more than to have the opportunity to receive the training for these jobs and then we could telework, do it from our homes and farms, or from a satellite office. We can make a decent wage. Why don't we put some focus on that? I have an amendment, the telework amendment, and I have worked on this for the better part of a year. Whether it is Native Americans, first Americans, who want the opportunity for skills development or whether it be rural people, I wanted to bring an amendment to the floor that would have provided funding for this telework. I think this amendment would have made all the sense in the world. Rural workers need jobs. High-tech employers need workers. This amendment would have found a solution to these common challenges. It would authorize competitive grants to qualified organizations for 5- year projects to connect and broker employment in the private sector through telework to a population of rural workers, setting up centers of distance learning around the country in rural America, where we can make the connection between rural citizens who so desire the opportunity to have the skills and find the employment and the information technology companies that need these skilled workers. It seems to me that if we are going to have such a piece of legislation on the floor--we would be respectful, of course, of skilled immigrants coming to our country to do the work. I am all for that. But at the same time, we would also make sure citizens within our own country who desire the opportunity to receive the skills and job training to obtain these jobs are given such an opportunity. Cloture on the underlying bill would also doom another amendment that I think is necessary to improve this legislation. We cannot escape the irony that we are proceeding to pass a bill that would bring more foreign nationals into this country to work in high-tech companies, while we have done nothing to help literally thousands of immigrants who have been living in this country for years and paying taxes and often raising their children as American citizens. If we are going to bring more foreign workers into this country, it is only fair and just to take into account people who are already here, already contributing to our economy, and who already have families who have only known America as their home. It is hypocrisy, in my view, to do one without the other. There are thousands of taxpaying immigrants who have been waiting years for an adjustment of status to permanent residency. Many of them have done everything they are required to do to stay in this country. But through a bureaucratic mixup, a change in laws, or another reason, largely beyond their control, they have become ``out of status.'' It is for these people that we must--I use the word ``must''--pass the Latino and Immigrant Fairness Act. Instead, we have moved to pass the H-1B bill and we ignore them. We ignore them, while we open our doors to more high-tech workers. With so many of our neighbors, our coworkers, our fathers, our mothers, and friends facing possible deportation to countries that have not been their home, I do not know how we can stand here and argue that increasing the H-1B cap to admit new foreign nationals should pass without bringing fairness and relief to those who are already here. I include a thousand wonderful people in the Liberian community in my own State of Minnesota. I don't know how a nation that believes in fairness could say that if you fled Castro, you can stay, but if you fled the death squads in El Salvador, you must go. I don't know how a nation that calls for more family values and responsible fatherhood would deport the father of American children such as JoJo Mendoza of Minnesota, who has worked for years building our economy, our community, and our Nation. Mr. Mendoza was deported 2 weeks ago from Minnesota. He left his children, who are Americans. I would be prepared to vote for raising the H-1B visa cap if it were done in the right way. I do not think the Lott amendment is the right way. I hope we can reach an agreement to do it in the right way--by permitting amendments that would make this bill one I could support. Finally, I say one more time--and I feel as if I have said it so many times that perhaps I have deafened all the gods--we cannot be good Senators, whether we are Democrats or Republicans, when we no longer have a process that allows unlimited debate and allows any Senator to come to the floor with amendments that he or she believes will lead to an improvement in the quality of life of the people we represent. I have said to the majority leader a million times--he is not on the floor now, but I don't feel badly saying it because I have said it so many times when he has been on the floor of the Senate--I believe the way in which we have proceeded, the way in which the majority party doesn't want to debate amendments and doesn't want to vote on controversial questions, robs the Senate of its vitality. It makes it hard for any of us to be good Senators. Here I am giving a speech. I like speaking on the floor of the Senate. I am honored to speak on the floor of the Senate. I get goose bumps every time I come to the Chamber. I love this Chamber, but I would rather be on the floor doing what I consider to be the work of a Senator, which is with an amendment that would set up centers for distance learning, that would focus on telework, that would be so important to so many rural Americans, including so many citizens in Minnesota, that would connect the need of the information technology industry for more skilled workers with a strong desire of rural people to be able to have the training, I say to my colleague from Idaho, and then telework from a satellite office from their home, a good job with a decent wage, with decent health care benefits. I can't introduce that amendment to this bill with the way the majority leader has proceeded. I can't improve this bill. I can't represent the people in greater Minnesota and rural Minnesota, many of whom are really hurting given the farm economy. For that reason, I certainly will vote for the motion to move forward on the immigrant fairness legislation, but I won't vote for this H-1B legislation as brought to the floor by the majority leader. I will not vote for cloture. I am going to insist over and over again, as is my right as a Senator, to come to this floor and introduce and debate amendments that I think will make our country better. My solution could be another Senator's horror. I understand that. But the beauty and the greatness of the Senate, when we are at our best, is not this process, but it is the process of amending and debating, disposing of amendments, voting yes or no, and having more amendments to deal with, and then work to pass the legislation. I think we are making a terrible mistake in proceeding the way we have. I do not think it is for the good of the Senate as an institution, and I don't think it is for the good of Minnesota or the country. I yield the floor.

Mr. WELLSTONE

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

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. I wanted to ask the Senator--I know Illinois is an agricultural State, as is mine. Many of our rural citizens, for example, desperately want what I think most people in the country want, which is to be able to earn a decent living and be able to support their families. At the same time we have our information technology companies telling us--I hear this all the time; I am sure the Senator from Illinois hears this--listen, we need skilled workers; we don't have enough skilled workers; and we pay good wages with good fringe benefits. Is the Senator aware we have people in rural America who are saying: Give us the opportunity to develop these skills? Give us the opportunity to be trained. Give us the opportunity to telework. With this new technology, we can actually stay in our rural communities. We don't have to leave. Is the Senator aware there are so many men and women, for example, in rural America--just to talk about rural America--who are ready to really do this work, take advantage of and be a part of this new economy, but they don't have the opportunity to develop the skills and to have the training? Is that what the Senator is speaking to?

Mr. WELLSTONE. Could I ask the Senator one other question? I am in complete agreement with what the Senator is saying. I had hoped to introduce an amendment to the H-1B bill that dealt with the whole issue of telework. I think we could have gotten a huge vote for it because this is so important to what we call greater Minnesota. I wish to pick up on something the Senator said earlier. He talked about his own background. The last thing I am going to do is to go against immigrants and all they have done for our country. I am the son of an immigrant. I have a similar background to that of my colleague, but I wanted to give one poignant example. I think we both tend to draw some energy just from people we meet. On Sunday, the chairman of the Federal Communications Commission--and I give Chairman Kennard all the credit in the world--came out to Minnesota to do a 3-day work session with Native Americans. When we talk about Native Americans, we are talking about first Americans, correct?

Mr. WELLSTONE. Do you know what they are saying? They are saying: In our reservations, we have 50-percent-plus poverty. In fact, they are saying it is not only the Internet; they still don't have phone service for many. What they are saying is they want to be part of this new economy. They want the opportunity for the training, the infrastructure, the technology infrastructure. Yet another example: I am all for guest workers and immigrants coming in. But at the same time we have first Americans, Native Americans--I see my colleague from Maryland is here. We talk about the digital divide--who are way on the other side of the digital divide. There is another example which I think we have to speak to in legislation at this time.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to speak for up to 10 minutes as in morning business.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I would like to also speak now about the H-1B bill on the floor. I ask unanimous consent that I have 10 minutes to speak on that legislation.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Chair. I will not speak a long time. But I want to raise a couple of issues that other colleagues have spoken to as well. I come from a State with a very sophisticated high-tech industry. I come from a State that has an explosion of information technology companies. I come from a State that has a great medical device industry. I come from a State that is leading the way. I am very sympathetic to the call on the part of business communities to be able to get more help from skilled labor, including skilled workers from other countries. I am more than sympathetic to what the business community is saying. I certainly believe that immigrants--men and women from other countries who help businesses and work, who stay in our country--make our country a richer and better country. I am the son of a Jewish immigrant who was born in Ukraine and who fled persecution from Russia. But I also believe that it is a crying shame that we do not have the opportunity--again, this is the greatness of the Senate--to be able to introduce some amendments: an amendment that would focus on education and job training and skill development for Americans who could take some of these jobs; an amendment that deals with telework that is so important to rural America, and so important to rural Minnesota. I hope there is some way I can get this amendment and this piece of legislation passed, which basically would employ people in rural communities, such as some of the farmers who lost their farms, who have a great work ethic, who want to work, and who want to have a chance to develop their skills for the technology companies that say they need skilled workers. They can telework. They can do it from home or satellite offices. It is a marriage made in heaven. I am hoping to somehow still pass that legislation. I hope it will be an amendment on this bill because, again, it would enable these Americans to have a chance. My colleague from New Mexico is one of the strongest advocates for Native Americans. This was such an interesting meeting this past Sunday in Minnesota. I give FCC Chairman Kennard a lot of credit for holding a 3-day workshop for people in Indian country who not only don't have access to the Internet but who still don't have phones. They were talking about guest workers and others coming to our country. These were the first Americans. They were saying: we want to be a part of this new economy; we want to have a chance to learn the skills. We want to be wired. We want to have the infrastructure. I hope there can be an amendment that speaks to the concerns and circumstances of people in Indian country. Finally, I think the Latino and Immigrant Fairness Act is important for not only the Latino community but also for the Liberian community. I am worried about the thousands of Liberians in Minnesota who at the end of the month maybe will have to leave this country if we don't have some kind of change. This legislation calls for permanent residency status for them. But I am terribly worried they are going to be forced to go back. It would be very dangerous for them and their families. I certainly think there is a powerful, moral, and ethical plan for the Latino and Latina community in this legislation. We had hoped that would be an amendment. Again, it doesn't look as if we are going to have an opportunity to present this amendment. I don't think that is the Senate at its best. I will vote for cloture on a bill that I actually think is a good piece of legislation but not without the opportunity for us to consider some of these amendments. They could have time limits where we could try to improve this bill. We can make sure this is good for the business community and good for the people in our country who want to have a chance to be a part of this new economy, as well as bringing in skilled workers from other countries. I think we could do all of it. It could be a win-win-win. The Senate is at its best when we can bring these amendments to the floor and therefore have an opportunity to represent people in our States and be legislators. But when we are shut down and closed out, then I think Senators have every right to say we can't support this. That is certainly going to be my position. I yield the floor.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, this is the issue of violence in homes. About every 13 seconds a woman is battered. A home should be a safe place. This is about anywhere from 5 to 10 million children witnessing this violence--not on TV, not in the movies, but in their living rooms, and the effect it has on these children. Today, I introduce a bill I would like to be able to have on the floor of the Senate for a vote. If I don't get it done over the next week or two, I am positive that there will be broad, bipartisan support for this legislation. This is called the National Domestic Violence Hotline Enhancement Act. I will send the bill to the desk on behalf of myself, Senators Johnson, Bayh, and Kennedy. On the House side, Representative Connie Morella, who has done such great work in this area, is introducing the same piece of legislation today. I send this bill to the desk. Darlene Lussier, from Red Lake Band, a Chippewa Indian reservation in Minnesota, called this bill the ``talking circle for all shelters.'' I would like to name it the ``Talking Circle For All Shelters.'' This is modeled after the Day One project in Minnesota. This legislation creates a web site that would allow the National Domestic Violence Hotline operators at shelters all around the country--and there are 2,000 shelters; this is a map of all the shelters in the United States of America. It would enable, through this web site, shelters one telephone call from a woman in need of help to the hotline, or to any shelter, because we would have everybody hooked up electronically under very safe and secure conditions. It would simply take one call for a woman to be able to know where she and her children could go to get away from this violence, where they could go to make sure that she would not lose her life, or that things would not get more violent at home. This is extremely important because what happens quite often is a woman will finally get the courage and she knows she must leave. She knows it is a dangerous, desperate situation. But when she calls a shelter, they may be completely filled up and not have anywhere for her to go and then she doesn't know where to go. Then she is forced to stay in that dangerous home. Then she is battered again and her children witness this, and quite often the children are battered as well. Remember, every 13 seconds a woman is battered in her home. A home should be a safe place. This piece of legislation is critically important. Right now, according to the National Network to End Domestic Violence, only 43 percent of the shelters in the United States have Internet access. We have to do better. In my State of Minnesota, last year 28 women were murdered. This was ``domestic violence.'' This year--and the year is barely half over--already 33 women in Minnesota have been murdered because of domestic violence. Three women were murdered within 8 days in northern Minnesota earlier this month. A woman, again, is battered every 13 seconds, and 3 million to 5 million to 10 million children witness this. Over 70 percent of these children themselves are abused. I don't want to hear one more story about a woman being murdered by her husband or boyfriend. I don't want to hear one more story about a woman being beaten, or her child fighting in school because he saw the violence in his home. We have to end this. I don't want to hear one more statistic about a quarter of homeless people on any given night are victims of domestic violence--women and children with nowhere to go. This ``Talking Circle For All Shelters'' would enable a woman to get on this national hotline, or call the shelter, and everybody would be linked up through a web site electrically, and she would be able to know right away where she could go to be safe, so that her children would be safe. This is modeled after Minnesota's Day One web site. This links every shelter in Minnesota. Day One reports that 99 percent of women and children who call, because of this system, are assured services and shelter that meets their unique needs. I want to take this Minnesota model--this Day One web site model--and make sure this becomes available for all women and all children throughout the United States of America. David Strand, who is chief operating officer of Allina Health System in Minnesota, and who has led the way, along with United Way, in providing the funding for this, talks about how important this is for healing and how important it is to return to healthy communities. Day One is all about healing. Day One is all about giving women who have been battered and abused and their children a chance to heal. Day One in Minnesota--and I want it to be Day One in the United States of America--is about making sure when she needs to make the call, she can do it and find out where she and her children can go. This is the ``Talking Circle For All Shelters'' in America. Over the past 5 years, the National Domestic Violence Hotline has received over 500,000 calls from women and children in danger from abuse. If we can take this Day One model in Minnesota, the web site that we have, and we can now make this a national program, we can make sure that these women and these children will get the help they need. We can make sure these women, when they make the call, will know where they can go, as opposed to making a call, and the shelter they call doesn't have any room and they don't know where to go, and then they stay and are battered again and, for all I know, they are murdered. We can take this new technology and link up all of these shelters electronically. We can make this a part of the national domestic violence hotline, and we can make a real difference. I want to introduce this today. I am absolutely sure we can pass this legislation. I know we can do this. I know it is the right thing to do. I know there will be strong support from Democrats and Republicans as well.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the passage of the Children's Health Act of 2000, an extraordinary bipartisan bill that includes so many outstanding provisions to improve the health and mental health of the children of our country. The bill includes the reauthorization of the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, a long-overdue reauthorization and revitalization of an agency that provides most of the public funding of mental health and addiction services to our communities. SAMHSA has many dedicated staff who have worked so hard to develop and manage remarkable programs over the last several years. I am proud to have played a role in the development of this comprehensive bill, and to join my colleagues in encouraging its quick passage into law. The Children's Health Act of 2000 takes a major step forward in supporting research, services, treatment, and professional training to begin to address some of the most significant health problems affecting children of all ages. This legislation clearly states that children's health, including their mental health and addiction treatment needs, must be a priority for our country. It is not enough to deal with our children's health needs only after they have become crises. Many of the programs outlined in this bill recognize this problem by focusing on prevention and education programs, and by supporting programs to train researchers and health care providers who specialize in children's health. Many of the health areas included in this comprehensive bill were identified by the Department of Health and Human Services as among the top 10 leading health indicators for children in its major public health initiative ``Healthy People 2010,'' launched in January 2000. Several were of particular importance to me as I worked on this bill, especially programs supporting treatment of mental illness and addiction; increased access to health care, especially for our mentally ill youth in correctional facilities; and overall improvements in fitness and oral health for all our children, including low-income children and children living in rural areas. Dr. David Satcher, the United States Surgeon General, has released several groundbreaking reports in recent years which highlight the scope and the specific health needs of our children. These reports included ``Mental Health: A Report of the Surgeon General''; ``The Surgeon General's Call to Action to Prevent Suicide''; and the first ever ``Oral Health In America: A Report of the Surgeon General,'' which each begins to address these severe health crises in these areas for so many of our children. The problems identified by Dr. Satcher touch on both the national problems across our country, and also highlight the significant health care disparities for different groups. I am pleased to have contributed to many new legislative and funding efforts to support improvements in these areas of health care. In the Surgeon General's 2000 report on oral health, the strong link between oral health and overall health was highlighted, and this bill helps to address the problems identified in the report. Dr. Satcher emphasized the devastating consequences of untreated oral disease and how it can affect children's health and well-being, leading to serious pain and suffering, time lost from school, loss of permanent teeth, damage to self-esteem, and co-existing medical conditions. So much of what we need to do is already known. We need to identify the unmet need and improve access to care for those who need it most. This bill includes funding for school-based and other innovative oral health care programs to improve the overall health of our children. The oral health programs included in this bill are an important step forward. Healthy People 2010 goals also identified obesity as a major problem for children, particularly because of the decline in physical activity among our children. One-fourth of our children aged 6-17 are overweight, and the percentage of children who are seriously overweight has doubled in the last thirty years. This is not a minor issue for the health of our children: obesity as a chronic illness is related to other serious chronic conditions in children, including type II diabetes, hypertension, and asthma. Research has also shown that 60% of overweight children 5-10 years old already have at least one risk factor for heart disease. Adult obesity is associated with many of the leading causes of death and disability, including heart disease, diabetes, arthritis, and cancer. The public health efforts in this bill that focus on this serious national problem, including improvements in physical education funding, public health education, and nutrition education, are ones I enthusiastically support. In the future we must do even more to again make physical education a high priority for our country and establish a national foundation to promote physical activity for all ages. I am particularly proud of the section of this bill that supports local suicide prevention programs focusing on our young people. Youth suicide must be recognized for the national crisis that it is. In my own state of Minnesota, suicide is the second leading cause of death among our youth, as it is in half of the states in our country. Overall, in the United States, it is the third leading cause of death among our children, taking more lives than homicide. We know from the outstanding research supported by the National Institute of Mental Health that 90% of all completed suicides are linked to untreated or inadequately treated mental illness or addiction. More than 500,000 Americans attempt to take their own lives every year. In this bill, $75 million will be authorized to support local prevention programs focusing on our children who are at risk of taking their own lives. More than 50 groups supported our efforts to improve funding for suicide prevention programs this year, including local programs, like the Minnesota group, Suicide Awareness/Voices of Education (SA/VE), as well as national groups, such as Suicide Prevention and Advocation Network (SPAN), the National Hope Line Network, and the National Mental Health Association. We can no longer afford to turn our eyes away from the horrible reality that many of our citizens, even our children, may want to die. We continue to treat mental illness and severe drug addiction as somehow less important than other illnesses. We blame the sick for their disease, and the result can be death and tragedy. Today, we begin to acknowledge that this kind of discrimination is against many of our own children. I am also pleased to have worked to include an additional $4 million to support resource centers for those who work with our mentally ill youth in correctional facilities. Our children need help in many areas: education, child care, juvenile justice, and health care. Many are experiencing severe drug addiction, mental illness, and lack of access to health care coverage. The Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) has recognized that the number one priority for the nation's National Drug Control Strategy is to educate and enable America's youth to reject illegal drugs as well as alcohol and tobacco. And yet 80 percent of adolescents needing treatment are unable to access services because of the severe lack of coverage for addiction treatment or the unavailability of treatment programs or trained health care providers in their community. Many of these children end up in the juvenile justice system as a result. The reauthorization of SAMHSA within this bill, with its state block grant funding for mental health and addiction treatment, is a good beginning. But so much more must be done to stop treating our children as second class citizens, and to stop treating mental illness and addiction as second class illnesses. We must continue to fight for fairness and parity in health care coverage for our children, indeed for all of our citizens, who suffer from mental illness and addiction. It is their future, and ours, as a country, that is at stake.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I wish to announce on the floor of the Senator that 34 colleagues--Democrats and Republicans alike--join me in a letter to the White House today. We are talking about what is going on with oil prices and what is going on with home heating costs. The projections are very frightening. We see home heating oil costs up 30 percent and natural gas costs up 40 percent. For many of us in cold-weather States, this is a crisis issue. Specifically, we are talking about the Low-Income Energy Assistance Program. My colleague, Senator Harkin, has been a leader in this fight for a long, long time. The point is that the President has about $500 million right now in LIHEAP emergency funding that we could get back to the cold-weather States. LIHEAP is a terribly important addition to the negotiations on the appropriations bill this year. Also, for funding next year, we are saying add an additional $500 million. Otherwise, I think probably maybe 15 percent of the people who are eligible for LIHEAP funding will not get any. In the State of Minnesota, you are talking about, roughly speaking, 90,000 households. About a third of them are elderly. This is a lifeline program. It is not a lot--maybe $350 a year. But it helps people with their heating costs. What is going on now means that the heating costs are going to go way up. If we don't add some funding to this program, we are going to have people who are cold, or they will not buy prescription drugs, or they will not have food on the table. This is a huge issue. I urge the President and the White House in negotiations to be strong on funding for LIHEAP. We need the additional $500 million now and an additional $500 million next year. We have to make sure this important lifeline program is funded. I visited a lot of people in their homes. Many of them are elderly people. This makes a huge difference to them. I am really worried about what is going to happen. By the way, for the information of colleagues, it is interesting to me that we have focused on OPEC countries. An interesting story came out in the past couple of days that the non-OPEC oil countries, that collectively produce more than half the world's crude oil, rather than producing more to meet the additional demands, are producing less. Exxon-Mobil--we have these mergers, acquisitions. We have monopolies and a cartel. I think they are in a position to fix prices. If there ever was a case to be made for antitrust action, this is a pretty decisive area in the economy where we ought to be looking at these conglomerates and holding them accountable for putting more competition into this industry.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I will not object, but with the indulgence of my colleagues, I ask unanimous consent to then be allowed to speak for 15 minutes of the Democrats' time?

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Chair. I thank the Senator from Louisiana for her excellent work. I just had three members of the department of natural resources of Minnesota in my office today encouraging me to support this measure. It is very important legislation.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, Senator Moynihan, Senator Daschle, and others have introduced a bill of which I am a cosponsor. It is really important. I didn't support the Balanced Budget Act of 1997. I thought it was a mistake. I didn't understand how this projected $116 billion in Medicare cuts was actually going to work on the ground with our hospitals, HMOs, and nursing homes--you name it. The projected cost is actually $200 million less by way of funding. Last year, we did a ``fix.'' We restored approximately an additional $16 billion or $17 billion. It did not solve the problem. We now have a bill and a request of $8 billion over the next 10 years. This is critically important. In Minnesota, in 1999, 54 of our 139 hospitals operated with less than a 2-percent margin, and 27 percent of them are in the red. Whether it is an inner-city hospital, such as Hennepin County General, or rural hospitals, I tell Senators--Democrats and Republicans alike--that we made a huge mistake. We should have never voted for these draconian cuts in Medicare reimbursements. I don't know what is in the world we were thinking. I didn't vote for it. But I say ``we'' because I am a Member of the Senate, and proud to be a Member of the Senate. But we have to restore a significant amount of this funding because both in the inner city and in the rural areas where there is a disproportionate number of elderly and low-income people, these providers are not making it. Rural hospitals will shut down. This is not just a crisis for rural communities. Employers lack health care for people. And Hennepin County General, which is, I think, a sacred place, is such an important hospital. They are struggling because of what we did in 1997. This piece of legislation we have introduced will call for $80 billion to be restored for this funding. It is critically important if we care about the care for the elderly, low-income, rural, and inner- city communities. I hope Democrats and Republicans alike in this final week of negotiations will come together and support not only our providers but also support the people in our State who really count on this care. As long as we are talking about the last couple of weeks, I want to ask Senator Harkin to share with me his reaction. We had a vote yesterday. We had two appropriations bills, Postal- Treasury and legislative branch appropriations, which were merged together. Legislative branch got through and Postal-Treasury never came to the floor of the Senate. It was put into the conference report. Part of the idea was that you could have a salary increase, which may be fine, but of course we don't raise the minimum wage for people. The idea would be then we would have an opportunity to have up-or-down amendments and a vote on the minimum wage. If we can raise the salaries above $140,000, we ought to be able to vote for the minimum wage for the working poor people of the country. Senators voted against that bill. Now I hear that the majority leader is talking about a lame duck session. Am I correct? I ask my colleague from Iowa. I would like to go back and forth in some discussion with my colleague from Iowa about this.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Absolutely. And prescription drugs. So am I correct that the lame duck proposal basically adds up to this: What some Republicans seem to be suggesting is, let's get out of here; let's not have to vote on any of this; let's come back after the election and then we will vote?

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I hope other Senators will come to the floor and speak on this question, including members of the majority party, the majority leader included. The way I look at it, you cannot help but smile with a twinkle in your eye. We have had plenty of time to do the work of the people, and now to say we can't get this done. Part of the proposal is that maybe a few appropriators would stay here with the White House and the rest of us would go home and campaign. I have heard that being discussed, which means we are not here doing the work. Then the other part of it is the lame duck session. I think this is a breakdown of representative democracy. Basically, I think the majority party is trying to have it a couple of different ways. On the one hand, as a special favor to the insurance industry, they block sensible patient protection legislation. As a special favor to some of the bottom dwellers of commerce, they block raising the minimum wage from $5.15 to $6.15 over 2 years. And as a special favor to the pharmaceutical industry, they don't want to extend prescription drug benefits as a part of the Medicare program for elderly people. And as a special favor to some of the big packers and conglomerates, they pass Freedom to Farm, which we call the ``freedom to fail'' bill. But at the same time, they don't want to be held accountable for any of this. They don't want to have amendments on the floor. They don't want to have any votes. They don't want any accountability. What they would like to do--I think the actual meaning of this proposal, which we are going to raise some Cain about because we are here to work, about coming back for a lame duck session is that our Republican colleagues want to vote on prescription drug costs after the election. They want to vote on patient protection after the election. They want to vote on minimum wage after the election. They want to vote on whether we should have more teachers in schools and smaller class size, and something you have been working on, some funding for rebuilding crumbling schools, after the election. I don't think people in the country are going to go for that. I say to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, that is not the way representative democracy works.

Mr. WELLSTONE. If I may interrupt my colleague, the Senator is absolutely right. This is just an extension of what has been going on. The Senate is an institution where we should have the debate, the deliberation. That is what this is about. By filing cloture on bills, by not allowing debate, by putting unrelated provisions into a conference report, the majority party has decided they will not allow debate. The logical extension of this is, let's get out of town; let's not be held accountable. Regarding veterans, the veterans organizations, many of them put together what they call an independent budget. Senator Johnson of South Dakota and I have had amendments where we get a 99-0 vote that we definitely want to add an additional $500 million because we know veterans have fallen between the cracks. Every time, in some conference committee or now in some omnibus appropriations bill, they never actually vote to put the appropriations into veterans' health care. I think the Senator is right. Whether it is veterans, farmers, people in the country caring about education--this is all the people.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Don't say that. We are speaking. Don't say that. We are speaking.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I'm kidding.