Paul Wellstone

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I rise to participate in the debate on the motion to proceed. But I have been doing work with my colleague, Senator Brownback. I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to follow Senator Brownback.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, the Senate tonight passed the Trafficking in Victims Protection Act of 2000. Similar legislation passed the House. The conference committee is committed to this legislation. I don't think there is any question but that the Congress is going to pass this bill. This was a huge step forward. I thank Senator Brownback who for 3\1/2\ years, at least, has been working on this. It started with my wife Sheila, who brought this to my attention. I remember meeting with women from Ukraine--which is where my father was born--describing what had happened to them. Senator Brownback is absolutely right. This is one of the brutal aspects of this new global economy. It supplements drug trafficking, except quite often it is more profitable, believe it or not, because the women--girls--are recycled over and over again. We are talking about close to 1 million women and girls, the trafficking of these women and girls for purposes of forced prostitution or forced labor. We are talking about the trafficking of some 50,000 women, girls, to our country. Two miles away, in Bethesda, there was a massage parlor with a group of girls from Ukraine. The country is in economic disarray. They thought this was an opportunity. They came to our country. Their passports were taken away. They were isolated. Senator Brownback talked about the isolation. They were beaten up. They were raped. They were forced into prostitution. In our country, in the year 2000, this goes on in the world, and in the United States of America. This legislation would never pass without the leadership of Senator Brownback and the leadership of Sharon Payt. I thank Wes Carrington, who is on the floor with me, and Jill Hickson, two fellows who have been gifts from Heaven, and Charlotte Moore, who has been working on this, and my wife Sheila. I could talk for hours about this, but I will emphasize a couple of key aspects. First, prevention, a focus on doing the public information work in these countries and work with the consulates so these girls have some understanding of what their rights are, so they are warned about the dangers of this when the recruiters are out there to try to prevent this from happening in the first place; and an emphasis on how you can get economic development from microenterprise to opportunities for women. Part of the problem is the way in which women are so devalued in too many nations. Also, the grinding poverty. Second, protection. The bitter, bitter, bitter irony, colleagues, is that quite often the victims are the ones who are punished, and these mobsters and criminals who are involved in the trafficking of these women and girls with this blatant exploitation get away with literally murder. One of the problems is that these girls and women can't step forward because then they will be deported. So we have an extension of temporary visas for up to 3 years for the women, girls, and a final decision is made as to whether or not they can stay in the country. In addition, there is some help for them. We have in Minnesota the Center for the Treatment of Torture Victims. It is a holy place. It is a spiritual place. Most of these women and men come from Africa. They have been through a living hell. We read about child soldiers. We read about what is happening. It takes a long time for people to be able to rebuild their lives when they have been through this, when they have been tortured. There are 120 governments today in the world that are engaged in this systematic use of torture today; the same thing for these women and girls. Imagine what it is like for them. There is help for them. Finally, prosecution, and taking this seriously, treating it as a crime so, for example, if you are trafficking a young girl under the age of 14 and forcing her into prostitution, you face a life sentence in prison. And finally, not automatic sanctions but a listing of those governments which are involved in the trafficking, which have turned their gaze away and refused to do anything about it. With it being up to a President, be he Democrat or Republican or she a Democrat or Republican, in the future, as to whether or not there is an action to be taken. It is a good piece of legislation. I think Senator Brownback is right. I think it is the human rights legislation to pass the Congress. It will pass. Mr. Koh, Assistant Secretary of Human Rights at the State Department, has been great. The administration has been supportive. We have had a lot of support from Democrats and Republicans here, and I really feel good about it. I said to Senator Brownback, I think Senator Bennett can appreciate this because I think he is like this--the first part I don't want to say is his view--but there are some days where I just cannot decide whether or not I have really been able to help anybody. You try, but you just sometimes get so frustrated. I think this piece of legislation we passed will help a lot of people. I really do, I say to Senator Brownback. I think it is a good model for other governments, other countries. I am not being grandiose here. I think we can get this out to a lot of fellow legislators in other nations and other NGOs. I know there is a lot of interest. I rise to speak about this bill, to tell my colleague from Kansas, Senator Brownback, I appreciated working with him, and to say to the Senate--all the Senators; after all, this passed by unanimous consent-- thank you, thank you for your support.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, colleagues, I rise today to draw attention to a recent decision by the Administration to reinitiate military ties with the government of Indonesia. Despite congressional concerns, the U.S. navy, marines, and coast guard last week began a 10- day joint military exercise known as CARAT, Cooperation Afloat Readiness and Training, with their Indonesian military counterparts. Although the Administration sees this mission as a routine good-will mission, it is in fact the first time U.S. and Indonesian armed forces have worked together since the United States cut military ties with Indonesia last year. Colleagues, in case you don't recall, we cut those military ties after East Timor was devastated by Indonesian troops. We cut those ties because Indonesian soldiers are reported to have been active participants in a coordinated, massive campaign of murder, rape, and forced displacement in East Timor. The administration's decision to go forth with a CARAT exercise again this summer is simply indefensible. Given the human rights violations committed by the Indonesian military in East Timor and the lack of accountability for them, and the Indonesian military's continued ties to militias in West Timor, one must ask not only the question why we are so eager to re-engage with this military at all, but why we feel compelled to do so now. Now is not the time to conduct joint exercises with the Indonesian military; now is the time to demand its accountability. To do otherwise is to tacitly condone its conduct. Conditions continue to deteriorate in East Timorese refugee camps in West Timor and throughout the Indonesian archipelago. Up to 125,000 East Timorese still languish in militia-controlled refugee camps in West Timor almost one year after the people of East Timor voted overwhelmingly for independence from Indonesia. Many of the refugees wish to return home but are afraid to do so. Today refugee camps remain highly militarized, with East Timorese members of the Indonesian military living among civilian refugees. And despite promises by the Indonesian government to disarm and disband militias, there are credible reports of Indonesian military support for militia groups. These same militias have easy access to modern weapons. Earlier this month the U.N. High Commissioner on Refugees had to suspend refugee registration indefinitely due to violent militia assaults on its staff, volunteers and refugees, and though UNHCR has continued its work in other areas, UNHCR and other aid workers continue work under extremely dangerous conditions. There has also been an upsurge in militia border incursions into East Timor with attacks on U.N. Peacekeepers and civilians. I regret to say that earlier this week a peacekeeper from New Zealand was shot and killed. Militia leaders, the Indonesian military, and the West Timorese press continue to sponsor a mass disinformation campaign alleging horrific conditions in East Timor and abuse by international forces. Further, Indonesia has yet to arrest a single militia leader or member of its military accused of human rights violations in East Timor. Instead of reinitiating joint military exercises and allowing the sale of certain spare military parts, the Administration should increase its pressure on the government of Indonesia to fulfill past promises to disarm and disband militias in West Timor, and insure today that the Indonesian military is not linked to such militias. Militia leaders must be removed from refugee camps and those accused of human rights violations must be held accountable. Furthermore, Indonesia must make real its pledge to provide international and local relief workers safe and full access to all refugees. There is currently considerable unrest throughout the Indonesian archipelago. Reports abound about the direct involvement of the Indonesian military in much of the violence. In the past nineteen months thousands of people in Maluku, also known as the Moluccan Islands, have been killed in fighting between Christians and Muslims. It is known that members of the Indonesian military supported and, in some cases, caused the violence. On July 18, Indonesia's Minister of Defense Juwono Sudarsono admitted that there were ``some or even many'' army members who have become a ``major cause of clashes'' in Ambon. Credible human rights organizations also report an escalation of violence in West Papua with the Indonesian military actively supporting East Timor-style militias there. Moreover, the Indonesian military has repeatedly broken a cease-fire in the province of Aceh. Conditions in Indonesia are deteriorating. On Sunday U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan told Indonesia's President Wahid that U.N. peacekeepers may be needed for the archipelago but President Wahid said his government could end the conflict by itself. He did note, however, that Indonesia's overstretched military might need logistical aid from friendly countries such as the United States. I worry that the decision the Administration has made to re-initiate military ties with Indonesia is sending the wrong signal to President Wahid. It should be made very clear to President Wahid that the U.S. will not provide assistance to Indonesia to do what it did before in East Timor. Although I believe we should support Indonesia, we must recognize that the type of support we provide will directly influence the shape Indonesia takes in the future. The Administration has not only proceeded with the CARAT exercise despite congressional concerns but is moving ahead with ``Phase I'' of a three phase program of re-engagement with the Indonesian military. This could include the sale of certain spare military parts to Indonesia. Given the deteriorating conditions in Indonesia and the human rights record of Indonesian soldiers, do we really want to do this? I rise today to urge my colleagues to voice their opposition to the CARAT exercise and to oppose any proposal for strengthening military ties with Indonesia in the near future. Again, I would like to make very clear that I believe the U.S. should support Indonesia but we must recognize that the type of support we provide now will directly influence the shape Indonesia takes in the future. Resuming a military relationship now not only threatens any future reforms in Indonesia but jeopardizes efforts already made to subjugate the Indonesian military to civilian authority. U.S. policy towards Indonesia should support democratic reform and demand accountability for those responsible for alleged human rights violations in East Timor and elsewhere. I fail to see how the CARAT exercise or lifting the embargo on military sales to Indonesia does either.

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 some of the names of those who 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. July 27: Jesus Campos, 19, Chicago, IL; Steven Conley, 29, Memphis, TN; Stephen Daniels, Jr., 24, Miami-Dade County, FL; Willie G. Dulaney, 68, Memphis, TN; George Julian, 83, Hollywood, FL; Javier Marrero, 18, Chicago, IL; Eric McAlister, 33, Dallas, TX; Charles Oliver, 50, Atlanta, GA; Deondra Stokes, 21, Detroit, MI; Barreto P. Williams, 26, Chicago, IL; Unidentified male, 25, Newark, NJ. 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 rise today to introduce legislation that is intended to begin a long overdue discussion regarding the future of an industry, and a way of life that is basic not only to our agricultural economy but to the soul of America. I am talking about family dairy farming. To maintain this country's family dairy industry, we in the Senate need to act quickly before the end of this session, to effect a change in Federal dairy policy that will make a difference, a difference to dairy farmers who are struggling because they receive a price that is less than what it cost them to produce the product. It is clear dairy farmers in this country are facing devastating times. The current dairy policies have brought chaos to family dairy farmers. Last year, the Class III milk price decreased from $16.26 cwt. in September to $9.63 cwt in December, and prices have still not recovered. Over the last ten months we have seen a drop of over forty percent in milk prices. How can our dairy farmers survive with such volatility in the market place? Dairy farmers need to have a stable and equitable market price, and that simply does not exist under our current dairy policy. That is why I am pleased to introduce this legislation to set the milk support price at $12.50 per hundredweight. As my colleagues know, the dairy support price sets a floor on the price received by all producers, regardless of region, that should be set at a level sufficient to curb market volatility. However, the current support level of $9.90 cwt. is too low to act as a stabilizer for the market. The five year average for milk is $12.78 cwt, therefore this legislation to set the support price at $12.50 would protect against the huge drops producers have experienced in the past few years. I want to make clear that this legislation is not intended to be the complete solution to the problems with our national dairy policy, or lack thereof. I firmly believe that we need to develop a supply management mechanism to complement an increase in the price support, however, for too long this Congress has ignored the economic crisis our nation's dairy farmers are facing. Mr. President, what we do here in Washington has to be rooted in the lives of the people we represent. It has to be based upon the reality of lives of people in our communities, including people in rural communities. I think it is vitally important to understand that there is a crisis in capital letters with dairy farmers that is evident when you go out and talk with people, talk to farmers, hardworking dairy farmers, good managers, sitting down in their kitchens adding up the figures trying to cash flow. There is simply no way they can do it. Talk to dairy farmers who try to convince their sons and daughters that there is no more honorable profession to go into than to be a farmer, to be a dairy farmer, to produce nutritious milk for people at affordable prices, and yet people do not get a decent price for their work. In my State, fifty in the country in milk production, we have 8,000 dairy farmers with an average herd size of 59 cows. It is a family dairy industry. It is not a factory farm industry, and we want to keep it a family industry. The milk production from Minnesota farms generates more than $1.2 billion for our states' farmers each year, and a recent University of Minnesota study determined that dairy production in Minnesota creates an additional $1.2 billion in economic activity for related industry. Our dairy industry is efficient and it is innovative, and it produces a plentiful supply of pure wholesome milk at extremely reasonable prices, but it is also an industry in crisis. It is a crisis not only for dairy farmers themselves, but for rural communities throughout the country because the health and vitality of our rural communities is not going to be based upon the size of the herds but the number of dairy farmers who live in those communities, who buy in those communities, who go to churches in those communities, who support the school systems and businesses in those communities. I am afraid, as I speak here on the floor of the Senate, that agriculture in our country is about to go through a transition where all of agriculture will be dominated by giant conglomerates. The result will be the total lack of a competitive sector, family farm sector, of agriculture. That will be a transition that we'll deeply regret and that is why we have to act now. Mr. President, I hope we can respond appropriately to the pleas that are coming from any State and other agricultural States all around the country. Due to a drastic reduction in the prices paid to farmers for their milk during the past year, thousands of farmers are going out of business. Since 1990 the number of dairy farmers in Minnesota has been nearly cut in half. This year alone we have already lost almost 300 dairy farms. We will lose more if we do not change the course of policy. Federal dairy policy has allowed milk production and prices to fluctuate widely. This fluctuation has caused a tremendous amount of instability for producers and consumers but it has been especially bad for farmers. While retail prices for dairy farmers have gone down and while the price for farmers has been dramatically cut by 40 percent, we have seen no such decrease at the grocery store. The solution is a Federal policy that provides a decent living to hardworking family farmers producing needed milk. The average cost of production for milk in the United States is around $13 per hundredweight and yet farmers in my State are receiving less than $10 for the same hundredweight. We need a system that will match output to need, and pay farmers a fair price. There is widespread support around the country for an increase in the price support. In fact the National Farmers Union and the National Farmers Organization, earlier this year, testified in support of an increase of the current price support of $9.90. Such a system will allow farmers to earn a price that covers the cost of production, and reduce the wild price fluctuations we have witnessed over the past few years. I want to make it very clear that I believe the vitality of the dairy industry is important not only to my State's economic health, and to the economic health of agricultural States all across the country, but to the maintenance of viable rural communities throughout our nation. I think it is important if we are to protect the environment. I think it is important if we are to have diversity. I think it is important if we are to avoid more concentration in the agricultural sector of our country. I think it is important if we are to continue to have family farmers who can produce wholesome milk at a decent price for consumers. I think it is important because it represents the very best of what we have been about as a nation. I hope we can make substantive dairy policy reforms this year, and I believe an increase in the price support is an important component, as is a targeted supply management mechanism. It is clear we must act soon. And I hope we can do it before the close of Congress. Mr. PRESIDENT, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I am proud to join my colleagues here today as co-sponsor of this bill which represents an important step forward in solving the shortage of affordable housing. The need for affordable housing has reached epic proportions and touches all of our communities. The time for action is now. The National Affordable Housing Trust Fund will be used to produce housing that is affordable to very low income families. It will provide states matching grant funds to produce affordable housing and engage in homeownership activities. It will allow non-profit intermediaries to compete for funds to produce housing. Most importantly, however, is it will use the proceeds from our investment in promoting homeownership to build homes for low income families. Mr. President, in 1997, 5.4 million households with 12.3 million people paid more than one half of their income in rent or lived in seriously substandard housing. Who are these 12.3 million people? 1.5 million are elderly persons, 4.3 million are children and between 1.1 and 1.4 million are adults with disabilities. We can afford to do better. This is a prosperous nation that can afford to solve this problem. In may own states of Minnesota, a worker must earn $11.54 an hour, 40 hours a week, 522 weeks out of the year to afford a fair market rent for a two bedroom apartment. $11.54. That's more than double the minimum wage. In fact, to afford a two bedroom apartment at minimum wage, families must work 88 hours a week. 88 hours. That's barely possible for a two parent family, and it is completely impossible for single parent families. The poorest families are particularly hard hit. In Minneapolis-St. Paul, a study conducted by the Family Housing Fund found 68,900 renters with incomes below $10,000 in Minneapolis-St. Paul and only 31,200 housing units with rents affordable to those families. That is more than two families for each unit affordable to a family at that income level and there is every indication it is getting worse. Given this information, it isn't hard to understand why the number of families entering emergency shelters and using emergency food pantries is on the rise. In fact, more and more of the homeless are working full time and are still unable to find housing. Mr. President, we must do more. The shortage of affordable housing is so drastic that in Minneapolis-St. Paul, like many other cities, even those families fortunate enough to receive housing vouchers cannot find a rental unit. Landlords are becoming increasingly selective given the demand for housing and are requiring three months security deposit, hefty application fees and credit checks that price the poor and young new renters out of the market. Let me share a story that truly struck me. In February, the Minneapolis Public Housing Authority distributed applications for families in the region interested in public housing. This was the first time since 1996 applications were accepted for public housing and it will likely to be last time for several years. Six thousand families sought applications for public housing in six days. An average of 1,000 families each day requested applications to reside in public housing in one metropolitan area. Those families were not applying for free housing. Residents would be required to pay one third of their income in rent. This is not luxury housing. Many families seem to look upon public housing with disdain, though I know those communities are rich with the talents and contributions of their tenants. This is not even immediate housing. Many of those families will wait years to get into public housing. Clearly this is a sign that the demand for housing far exceeds the supply. There is an immediate need to produce more affordable housing. Fortunately, we can afford to do this. Fortunately, we have a plan to do this. Mr. President, I know it is hard to think about poverty when we are surrounded by so much prosperity. But economic prosperity has not touched every family. Instead the gap between income groups continues to widen and the gap between what low income families earn and what they must pay for housing also appears to be widening. The Bureau of Labor Statistics report that between 1995 and 1997 rents increased faster than income for the 20 percent of American households with the lowest incomes. The Consumer Price Index for Resident Rent rose 6.2 percent, higher than the 3.9 percent rate of inflation for the same period. The skyrocketing rents are fueled by the shortage of housing. The demand for housing exceeds the supply, so in the private market the rents spiral upwards and far beyond the reach of the poor and often well-beyond the reach of the middle class who find themselves priced out of the very communities they grew up in. This affects families with children, elderly persons and persons with disabilities. It affects the well-being of businesses. The cost of housing has skyrocketed in some communities to a level that businesses cannot retain workers because their workers cannot afford to live in those communities. The shortage of housing is making it difficult for communities to retain some of our most essential workers. Police, firemen, teachers are all being priced out of the very communities they seek to serve! Mr. President, I am proud to be part of this effort that will generate more affordable housing for low income families. It is time to heed the call we are all hearing from our constituents. There is not one town, county or metropolitan area in this nation where a family can afford a two bedroom fair market rental working full time, year round at minimum wage. Not one state where a family who receives TANF can afford a two bedroom fair market rental unit. Families respond to the shortage of housing by crowding into smaller units. A one bedroom. An efficiency. Perhaps they rent seriously substandard housing, exposing their children to lead poisoning, living in neighborhoods where they don't feel safe allowing their children to play outdoors. Housing with leaky roofs, bad plumbing, rodents, roaches. Perhaps they pay more than the recommended 30 percent of their income in rent, maybe 40 percent, 50 percent or more. Families may do without what we might consider necessities. Not luxuries, but necessities such as gas, heat, and electricity. Families so financially stressed that one small crisis can send them tumbling. Perhaps families double up, two families in a home. Multiple generations crowded under one roof. When the stress of multiple families becomes unbearable, they are left with homeless shelters. Mr. President, in a recent study of homelessness in Minneapolis-St. Paul, The Family Housing Fund reported that more and more children experience homelessness. In one night in 1987, 244 children in the Twin Cities were in a shelter or other temporary housing. In 1999, 1,770 children were housed in shelter or temporary housing. Let me repeat that, 1,770 children in the Minneapolis-St. Paul area on one night alone sent the night in a homeless shelter or temporary housing. Seven times the number in 1987. And families are spending longer periods of time homeless. If they have a family crisis, if they lost their housing due to an eviction, if they have poor credit histories, if they can't save up enough for a two or three month security deposit, they will have longer stretches, longer periods of time in emergency shelters before they transition into homes. Mr. President, we are experiencing unprecedented prosperity. It is time to make a commitment to ensuring families have access to decent affordable housing. We can afford to do this. In fact, we cannot afford not to do this.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. I ask unanimous consent that intern Sarah Schnerer be permitted privilege of the floor this afternoon.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I was necessarily absent today for rollcall vote No. 228, on the motion to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed to S. 2507, the intelligence authorization bill. I was in Minnesota visiting with my constituents in Granite Falls who were victims of a tornado which struck the city last night and caused severe damage and some loss of life. Had I been present, I would have voted aye on the motion.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, this brings into sharp focus yet another issue that should be our priority, that the majority party, the Republican Party, refuses to take up. That is campaign finance reform. I am not making a one-to-one correlation between what any Senator says on the floor or how he or she votes or the position he or she takes on an issue. I am talking about the overall bias of big money and the way in which it dominates politics. When people see this chart and hear the distribution of who benefits and who does not, the benefits are in inverse relationship to need. It violates every standard of fairness people have. People are all for some tax relief, if it is for families, if it speaks to the concerns of working families. This chart is, to most people, a little outrageous. This feeds into the skepticism that people have. Most people would say that is exactly what the majority party is all about. The folks they represent are the folks who can; they are the heavy hitters. They are the contributors, the players, the investors. They are the ones who have the clout. They are the ones who hire the lobbyists. They are the ones who know how, who march on Washington every day. The rest are left out. By the way, all too often, people unfortunately have that perception of both parties. What we have seen over the last week or 2 weeks only reinforces the skepticism and cynicism people have about who gets represented in the Senate and who doesn't. I say to my colleague from Illinois, there is another issue. The issue is, above and beyond not meeting any standard of fairness, and above and beyond huge benefits but in inverse relationship to need, there is another issue. I believe part of what the majority party is doing--and, by the way, every Republican has a first amendment right to believe this is the right thing to do for the country--is essentially eroding the revenue base, giving away $1 trillion in money so when it comes to health security for families, when it comes to long-term care for our parents or our grandparents or when it comes to how you can help a child so he or she by kindergarten can come ready to learn and does not fall behind and can do well in school, they don't believe there is anything the Government should be doing. I don't agree. I don't think most of the people in the country agree. I think in that sense that is clearly where the differences between the two parties make a difference. I am a critic of the timidity of our own party quite often. The differences right now between Democrats and Republicans make a real difference in the lives of people in this country. I conclude by mentioning another issue. I want to make sure I don't do this in a cheap shot, bashing way. I don't want to. There is a bitter irony because we will have an appropriations bill on the floor-- maybe--this week where we will be raising our salaries and, by the way, what is tricky for me is our salaries are above the Federal employees, including support staff who work hard. I am not interested in bashing away at people. But we are not interested in raising the minimum wage. We don't want to raise the minimum wage for people. If there is one proposition that people in the country agree on, people ought to be able to make enough of a wage so they can support their families and give their children the care they know their children need and deserve. We are now at the point where we want to have a minimum wage bill on the floor; we want to raise the minimum wage. I say to Senator Durbin, 75 to 80 percent of the people in the country believe that is the right thing to do. Disproportionately, it is women in the workforce out there every day, people who are working 40 hours a week, almost 52 weeks a year, still poor in America, and still can't support their families. We are going to have an appropriations bill out here where we are going to be raising our wages--and we don't do badly--but this Senate, this Republican majority, is not willing to even entertain a debate and let us vote on whether or not we think we should raise the minimum wage. These are big issues because they crucially affect the quality or lack of quality of the lives of the people we represent.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I will be pleased to yield.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I say to my colleague--and I am breaking my promise on last words, but on the whole issue of Governor Bush, talking about compassionate conservatism, I have no doubt he says it with sincerity. I am fond of this old Yiddish proverb--I think it is a Yiddish proverb--about how you cannot dance at two weddings at the same time. Frankly, you can talk about compassion. But the other problem is you cannot make a difference unless you are willing to, in fact, reach into your pocket and invest some resources. My colleague mentioned minimum wage. It occurred to me that one of the truly awful things is there are two groups of citizens we say we care the most about--let's talk about compassion--the very young children and the elderly, the people who built the country with the strength of their backs, who now, toward the end of their lives, may be struggling because of illness. Think about it for a moment, I say to my colleague from Illinois. Let's talk wages and then let's talk investment. The men and women who take care of small children, who work in child care, or take care of elderly people--either home-based care or nursing homes--are the most miserably paid workers in our country. We devalue the work of adults who take care of small children. We devalue the work of adults who take care of the elderly and those people struggling toward the end of their lives. They have the lowest wages and the worst--among the worst--benefits. Raising the minimum wage would help. It would make a difference. So would affordable health care coverage. We could make a difference, I say to my colleague from Illinois, and we should. But we do not. Is there any wonder at the turnover in both of these fields? I know in child care there is a 40-percent turnover every year, because if you graduate from school, college, you probably are going to have a debt. If you want to work in the child care field, you are looking at a $9- an-hour job maybe with no health care benefits, or a $7-an-hour job. The same goes for home-based care or for nursing homes. My final point. The problem with this chart is that you are talking about the top 1 percent getting the lion's share of all of these tax benefits. You are also talking about eroding the revenue base over the next decade to the point where, in certain decisive areas of life, we will not be able to make the investment. I want to shout this from the mountaintop on the floor of the Senate and finish with these words. When it comes to child care, if you want to talk compassion and you talk so much about small children and you care so much that there is nurturing care and they are challenged and come to school ready to learn, this is not going to be done on the cheap. This is going to require real investment if we are serious. When it comes to the elderly--I went through this with my parents. Now I will be critical of us for a moment. I am all for tax credits. It is fine. But both my mom and dad had Parkinson's. We moved them to Northfield. We actually lived here and we moved them to Northfield, MN, to try to keep them at home. We did. We kept them at home for a long time. It got to the point where we would spend the night with them, our children would, and then we were just exhausted. I sent a note out. It was the best day I ever had teaching at Carelton. I was desperate. I sent a note out to students and I said: Here is the situation with my parents. My dad in particular, he was from Ukraine, then Russia, and speaks 10 languages fluently and I think you would enjoy him. But we need some help. Would anybody be interested in spending the night? The next day I got 170 letters back from students saying they would be more than willing to help. It was wonderful. Then at the very end he fell and broke his hip and we no longer could keep them at home. But my point is, home-based care, enabling people to stay at home as long as possible, live with dignity, it is not done on a tax credit of $3,000. It is a lot more expensive than that. But if we are serious about this, we are going to have to make some investment. I can think of a better use of $1 trillion over the next decade for our country, the United States of America, than tax cuts that disproportionately go to the top 1 percent of the wealthy. I think we can do better for people like my mom and dad, who are no longer alive today. And I know we can do better for these small children.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I yield.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I thank my colleague, Senator Reid from Nevada, for his really fine statement. One of the things I most appreciate about Senator Reid is, his voice is a quiet voice, but it is a very firm and strong voice. I come to the floor wondering why it is that on Tuesday morning at 11 o'clock we are in morning business, which means we can't really do the work of democracy. To me, the work of democracy is to focus on issues that are important to people's lives and to try to make a difference.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Unfortunately, I am well aware of the situation, and, again, I think we have reached a point where this is raw politics. People in the country this November can decide about what direction we should take. A calculation can be made that a Presidential race is coming up and we don't want to move any judges anymore, whether it is for the court of appeals or Federal district judges. But when there has been such a long wait, as a Democrat, I think it is important that Democrats draw the line and insist that some of these highly qualified men and women be able to serve in the judiciary. I want to very briefly emphasize some of what was said this morning. I want to be out here on the floor of the Senate right now but not in morning business. I would like to be out here discussing a piece of legislation or with the ability to introduce an amendment to a piece of legislation that would make a positive difference in the lives of people in Minnesota and other people in the United States of America. I was at a public hearing with Representative Sheila Jackson-Lee from Houston. It was in Houston in Harris County, which I think is about the fifth largest county in America. It was about the mental health of children. I will never forget the testimony of Matt, who directs the county correction system. He spoke within a law and order framework. He made it clear that he is a no-nonsense law and order person. But he also said people believe these kids who are locked up are locked up because they have done something bad. But the truth is--these are his statistics--about 40 percent of these kids are locked up because parents couldn't get mental help for them. There was nothing available. I would like to be out on the floor of the Senate introducing legislation and passing legislation that would make it possible for these kids to get the help--so they wouldn't be locked up; so they could go on and live good lives. There is a piece of legislation I have introduced with Senator Domenici called the Mental Health Equitable Treatment Act. I think it is shameful that there is for so many people who struggle with mental illness still such discrimination in coverage, and their illness is treated as if it is a moral failing when they don't get the coverage. When it comes to the stays in the hospital, physician visits, and what bills are covered, the coverage isn't there. They go without treatment. I would like to be on the floor of the Senate doing the business and work of democracy by trying to pass this legislation. My colleague, Senator Reid, said that a Patients' Bill of Rights is just but one step. I agree with him. I think it is important to people in the country to make sure that in this health care system they fit in; to make sure the providers fit in; and to make sure that the people who are denied access to care which they believe they need for themselves and their families have a right to appeal when there is some protection for them. I would like to pass meaningful patient protection legislation. I would like the floor right now involved in that debate. I introduced a bill for the Service Employees International Union. It is a great union. I was at a press conference with Andy Stearn, the president, and other members of the union. This is a union that knows how to organize workers. It is the fastest growing union in America. Probably 70 or 75 percent of the membership is women. Probably 70 or 75 percent of the membership is people of color. It is a piece of legislation that I think speaks to the No. 1 concern of people around the country; that is, health security for themselves and their families. What we basically say in this legislation is, as a national community, here is what we can agree upon--that there should be health care benefits for the people we represent that is as good as we have in Congress. I am determined to introduce a resolution and have a vote on that proposition that the people we represent should have the same health security that we have. In that legislation, we agree nationally, as a community, that health care coverage should be affordable; that when you have an income below $20,000, you pay 0.5 percent and no more of your annual income; between $25,000 and $50,000, you pay no more than 5 percent of your income per year; and over $50,000 a year, you would never pay more than 7 percent of your annual income. Part of the problem with health care is not just the 44 million or 45 million who are uninsured, but all of the people when it comes to paying deductibles and fees just can't afford it any longer. Too many people are not old enough for Medicare. Even if they are, they can't afford prescription drug coverage. They are too poor for medical assistance. Even if they are, it is by no means comprehensive. They are not lucky enough to work for an employer that can provide them with affordable coverage. We also say nationally that we, as a national community, we agree there should be good patient protection legislation.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I would be pleased to yield.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I say to my colleague from Illinois that any time he wants to raise such a question, continue to do so. He got a little ahead of me. This is exactly where I want to go. To finish this proposal on this legislation and what I like about it--then I will talk about this in a broader context--we are saying to States within this framework, go ahead and decide how you want to do this. Once we agree on universal coverage, once we have agreed it will be affordable with good benefits and patient protection for all citizens, then States decide how they want to do it--one insurer, the employer pays, pay or play, we decentralize. I think it makes all the sense in the world. Then the question is, What is the cost? Over the first 4 years, as you phase it in, it would be $100 billion. If you are looking at the total cost over 10 years, it would be $700 billion a year. That is not even a third of the projected surplus. So the question becomes, What are our priorities? I argue, based on conversations and meetings I have had with Minnesotans--some people do not agree with this point of view, but I say honestly that I do no damage to the truth on the floor of the Senate or any other time. I hope when we summarize all of the discussions from people about how to reduce poverty, how to have good welfare reform, how to have a stable middle class, how to make sure our country does well in the international economy, how to make sure our children have opportunities, how to make sure we can reduce the violence--over and over and over again, the focus is on a good education, good health care, and a good job. That is on what people are focused. There are two questions. I don't want to monopolize the floor. But one of them has to do with priorities. I think what happened during the last couple of weeks is, frankly, that there has been a major ideological debate, not, in some ways, dissimilar to what happened in 1981. To the extent that you are now going to have new tax cuts disproportionately benefiting, by the way, people at the very top--I am not totally against some tax cuts. In fact, I think some tax, targeted tax cuts make a lot of sense, especially focused on working families and the priorities of our families in the country. But if you are going to basically erode the revenue base, and you are going to say over the next 10 years here is $800 billion or $900 billion, no longer from this floor any kind of investment in children, education health care, prescription drug benefits so people can afford those benefits, but instead it is going to be tax cuts disproportionately helping those people who are already the very top of the economic ladder, then you are doing two things. No. 1, there is no standard of fairness in terms of who gets the tax relief and who gets the help. But even more importantly than that, you are eroding the revenue base, making it impossible for Government through public policy to make a positive difference in the lives of people. If you believe when it comes to education--whether it be pre-K, whether it be affordable child care, whether it be what we can do K through 12, whether it would be higher education and spending for Pell grants, or when it comes to health care, or when it comes to a whole range of issues that affect people's lives in this way--if you believe that there is nothing the Government can or should do, fine. But that philosophy works well when you own your own large corporation and you are wealthy; it doesn't work for most people. Talk to veterans about veterans' health care; talk to families about child care; talk to families about health care; talk to families about higher education; talk to families about affordable housing; talk to families about how they believe life can be better for themselves and their children. They don't believe for a moment that there is nothing we can or should do that would make a difference. Their discouragement is all too often that we don't seem to be on their side, and we don't seem to be speaking to them or including them. We were in morning business at 11 o'clock this morning. The Republicans don't want to go forward with Federal judges. They don't want to have opportunities for amendments. They do not want to have opportunities for debate. They do not want to talk about minimum wage. They don't want to talk about affordable prescription drug costs. They don't want to talk about patient protections. They don't want to talk about health security for families or about a commitment to early childhood development. They don't want to talk about a lot of these issues. Therefore, I think the Senate is not doing the work for enough people.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I would be pleased to yield.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I say to my colleague, I remember the amendment well because I offered it with Senator Dodd. But there was one other important feature to it. It was a refundable tax credit. It was going to provide some help for those families who did not come under $30,000, which is critically important. I say the same thing about higher education. If we want to do tax credits, make sure they are refundable. Again, think of our community college students. I have reached the conclusion that the nontraditional students have become the traditional students. I have reached the conclusion that the majority of students today in higher education are no longer 18 and 19 living in a dorm. The majority are 30, 35, 40, 45, 50, going back to school, many of them women, many of them with children. And, again, I can think of a better use of this money than a tax break for the top 1 percent of the population. I far prefer to be out here on the floor passing legislation which will assure affordable higher education, affordable child care, and make a real investment in health care than some of these other areas.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the privilege of the floor be granted for the remainder of today to the following interns in Senator Johnson's office: Terry Garcia, Brad Mollet, Leif Oveson, Anna Turner, and Katy Ziegler.

Mr. WELLSTONE

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

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I rise today to once again draw attention to the continuing war in Chechnya. This war has raged for too long. The war in Chechnya from 1994-1996 left over 80,000 civilians dead, and the Foreign Relations Committee has received credible evidence that the current war has again resulted in the death of thousands of innocent civilians and the displacement of well over 250,000 others. The committee also received credible evidence of widespread looting, summary executions, detentions, denial of safe passage to fleeing civilians, torture and rape, committed by Russian soldiers. Colleagues, regardless of the politics of this war, this kind of behavior is unacceptable. War has rules, and the evidence and testimony the Foreign Relations Committee received raises serious doubts as to whether or not the Russian Federation is playing by those rules. Much of the evidence we received showed clear violations of international humanitarian law, including the well-established Geneva Convention. The President must use this opportunity to relay our serious concerns with the actions of the Russian Government in Chechnya. Let's remember, what was the Group of Seven and became the G-8 with the inclusion of the Russian Federation, is an association of democratic societies with advanced economies. Although Russia is not yet a liberal democracy or an advanced economy, it was invited to take part in this group to encourage its democratic evolution. Today as I watch Russia refuse to initiate a political dialogue with the Chechen people, and continue to deny international humanitarian aid organizations and international human rights monitors access to Chechnya, I must question that evolution. I am disappointed that the Group of Eight will not include the situation in Chechnya on its formal agenda, but I am hopeful that the President will voice our serious concerns about Russia's conduct in Chechnya and take concrete action to demonstrate our concern, during bilateral talks with President Putin. The United States should demand that the Russian Federation push for a negotiated, just settlement to this conflict. The conflict will not be resolved by military means and the Russian Federation should initiate immediately a political dialogue with a cross-section of representatives of the Chechen people, including representatives of the democratically elected Chechen authorities. The United States should remind the Russian Federation of the requests the Council of Europe for an immediate cease-fire and initiation of political dialogue, and of Russia's obligation to that institution and the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe. The President must also remind the Russian Federation government of its accountability to the international community and take steps to demonstrate that its conduct will effect its standing in the world community. This body and the U.N. Human Rights Commission has spoken out demanding the Russian government allow into Chechnya humanitarian agencies and international human rights monitors, including U.N. Special Rapporteur, yet the Russian government has not done so. This body and the international community has also demanded that the Russian Federation undertake systematic, credible, transparent and exhaustive investigations into allegations of violations of human rights and international humanitarian law in Chechnya, and to initiate, where appropriate, prosecutions against those accused. But again, the Russian Federation has not done so. During his meeting with President Putin, the President is expected to discuss economic reform in Russia and regional stability issues. President Clinton must relay to the Russian President that Russia's conduct in Chechnya is not only a violation of international humanitarian law, but that it threatens Russia's ability for economic reform and creates instability in the region. And President Clinton must make clear to President Putin that while the United States fully supports the territorial integrity of the Russian Federation, and is fully aware of the evidence of grave human rights violations committed by soldiers on both sides of the conflict, we strongly condemn Russia's conduct of the war in Chechnya and will continue to publicly voice our opposition to it. President Clinton should tell President Putin that the United States will take into consideration Russian conduct in Chechnya in any request for further rescheduling of Russia's international debt and U.S. assistance, until it allows full and unimpeded access into Chechnya humanitarian agencies and international human rights monitors, in accordance with international law. The war in Chechnya has caused enormous suffering for both the Chechen and Russian people, and the reports of the grave human rights violations committed there, on both sides of the conflict, continue daily. We must raise our concerns about the war in Chechnya at every chance and in every forum possible, including the G-8 Summit. That is why I speak on the floor of the Senate today. I fear we have already given human rights a back seat to economic issues by not placing Russia's conduct in Chechnya on the formal agenda of the G-8 summit, which is meeting right now. I hope that will not be the outcome of our bilateral talks with Russia in Japan. I hope the President will be firm. I hope the President will be strong. I hope the U.S. Government is on the side of human rights. As a Senator from Minnesota, I want to communicate in the strongest possible language that I hope Russia will do well. My father fled persecution in Russia. My hope is that Russia will be able to build a democratic economy. That is my hope for the Russian people. But I also want to make it clear to the Russian Federation that the conduct in Chechnya is unacceptable, in violation of basic international law, and that we should be talking about and moving toward some kind of peaceful settlement; and, for certain, international humanitarian agencies and human rights agencies should have unimpeded access to Chechnya now. Otherwise, the murder, the rape, the torture, and the killing of innocent people will continue. We in the Senate should speak out on this matter. I yield the floor.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I rise today to offer an amendment that is designed to make information technology--IT--jobs a part of diverse, sustainable rural economies while helping IT employers find skilled workers. The goal of this bill is to link unemployed and underemployed individuals in rural areas and on Indian reservations with jobs in the IT industry through telework. We are in the midst of an information revolution which has the potential to be every bit as significant to our society and economy as the industrial revolution two hundred years ago. But in recent months there has been much discussion of the ``digital divide,'' the idea that one America is not able to take advantage of the promise of new technologies to change the way we learn, live, and work while the other America speeds forward into the 21st Century. As advanced telecommunications and information technology become the new engines of our economy, it is critical that no communities are left behind. Many rural communities and Indian reservations are already facing severe unemployment, underemployment, and population loss due to a lack of economic opportunities. A study last year by the Center for Rural Affairs reports that widespread poverty exists in agriculturally based counties in a six-state region including Minnesota. Over one-third of households in farm counties have annual income less than $15,000 and, in every year from 1988 to 1997, earnings in farm counties significantly trailed other counties. Unemployment on many Indian reservations exceeds 50 percent and remote locations make traditional industries uncertain agents for economic development. There are troubles ahead for the new economy as well: the information technology industry reports that it faces a dramatic shortage of skilled workers. The Minnesota Department of Economic Security projects that over the next decade, almost 8,800 workers will be needed each year to fill position openings in specific IT occupations. Approximately 1,000 students graduate each year from IT-related post- secondary programs in Minnesota, not anywhere near enough to fill the demand, according to this same state agency. This shortage is reflected nation wide, with industry projecting shortfalls of several hundred of thousand IT workers per year in coming years. Rural workers need jobs. High tech employers need workers. This legislation would create models of how to bring these communities together to find a common solution to these separate challenges. My amendment is very straightforward. It would simply add $3 million to the very popular and successful Distance Learning and Telemedicine Program operated by USDA's Rural Utility Service for the purpose of promoting employment of rural residents through telework. Mr. President, telework is a new term that may be unfamiliar to colleagues so I want to take a moment to explain what it is. According to the International Telework Association and Council, telework is defined as using information and communications technologies to perform work away from the traditional work site typically used by the employer. For example, a person who works at home and transmits his or her work product back to the office via a modem is a teleworker, also known as a telecommuter; as is someone who works from a telework center, which is a place where many teleworkers work from--often for different companies. The nature of IT jobs allow them to be performed away from a traditional work site. As long as workers have the required training, and a means of performing work activities over a distance--through the use of advanced telecommunications--there is no reason that skilled IT jobs cannot be filled from rural communities. Because it essentially allows distance to be erased, telework is a promising tool for rural development and for making rural and reservation economies sustainable. Very soon, a firm located in another city, another state or even another country need not be viewed as a distant opportunity for rural residents, but as a potential employer only as far away as a home computer or telework center. Likewise, telework arrangements allow employers to draw from a national labor pool without the hassles and cost associated with relocation. Many businesses and organizations are already using telework or telecommuting as a tool to reduce travel and commuting times and to accommodate the needs and schedules of employees. Many metropolitan communities with high concentrations of IT industries are already looking to telework as a means of addressing urban and suburban ills such as housing shortages, traffic congestion, and pollution. However, the IT industry does not currently view rural America as a potential source of skilled employees. Nor do many rural communities know how to turn IT industries into a viable source of good jobs to revitalize local economies. Moreover, many rural community leaders fear that providing IT job skills to rural residents--when there are no opportunities for using those skills in the community--will lead to further population losses as retrained workers seek opportunities in metropolitan areas. At the same time, management of off-site employees requires new practices to be developed by employers and in some cases, dramatic paradigm shifts. Rural areas and Indian reservations are in danger of being left behind by a revolution which actually holds the most promise for those communities which are the most distant. IT employers risk missing a pool of potential employees with a strong work ethic. Receiving one of the teleworking grants provided for by my amendment will give rural communities access to federal resources to implement a locally designed proposal to employ rural residents in IT jobs through telework relationships, linking prospective employers with rural residents. This amendment will allow these communities to create locally developed and implemented national models for how telework can be used as a tool for rural development. The necessary vision to of how to make telework a reality already exists in some employers and in some rural communities. In Sebeka, Minnesota--a town with a population of little more than 600 people--a small firm called Cross Consulting was founded. That company employs over 20 people through a contract with Northwest Airlines to provide programming on Northwest's mainframe computers. These people are rural teleworkers. The new economy is not leaving Sebeka behind and we need to incubate that kind of innovation in rural areas and Indian reservations across this country. On April 13 along with Senators Baucus and Daschle I introduced the Rural Telework Act of 2000. That legislation is a more comprehensive means to the same ends as this amendment I am offering today. I mention this legislation because it is broadly supported by private industry, rural communities, educational institutions and tribal governments. For many jobs, in many industries, telework may be the future of work. It may also be the future of diverse, sustainable rural economies. This amendment offers an early opportunity to invest in local innovation to harness this potential and I urge its adoption.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 3922.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask both Senators, the Senator from Mississippi or the Senator from Nevada, after we make a decision as to how we will proceed with the Harkin amendment and the Cochran amendment, am I in order next or do we go to an amendment on the other side? Just so I know whether I should need to be here. I am trying to move things forward.