Paul Wellstone

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. I say to the Senator from Ohio, this effort to deal with the demand side and to get some substance abuse prevention and treatment moneys to our States and our communities, I have no doubt the Senator from Ohio is very committed to that. I look forward to working with him on this because, frankly, I think it is a scandal. We have so much evidence--Bill Moyers, the impressive journalist, has done such fine work on this--that we can treat this addiction, that we can make a huge difference. Senator Moynihan has spoken with such eloquence about the whole history of our efforts to constantly try to militarize and go for interdiction and not deal with the demand side. It is a completely one-sided proposition. I look forward to enlisting the support of my colleague from Ohio on this question. I know he will be there. I will wait to respond to other Senators. I know Senator Durbin is going to speak and Senator Biden. As I listen to my colleagues, what I am hearing--and I think we should be explicit about this--is that this is not just a question of a kind of war on narcotics. Otherwise, we would be doing more on the demand side. This is a question of basically saying that we can't just focus on the police. We can't just provide help to the government for police action and building democratic institutions and economic development and every other kind of assistance possible. We have to directly provide the money for the military to basically conduct their anti-insurgency campaign in the southern part of Colombia with American advisers and support. I believe that means we are taking sides. If we are taking sides and we are now in the middle of this war, so be it. That is what I am hearing on the floor. I wanted to comment on that. I retain the remainder of my time.

Mr. WELLSTONE. That is right, yes. I will just be a few minutes.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank my colleague for his courtesy. I know Senator Biden wants to speak. I ask unanimous consent that Senator Boxer be allowed to speak after Senator Biden.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank my colleague from Illinois for his very gracious remarks. A lot of times there is unnecessary flattery on the floor that may not seem sincere. I appreciate what he said. At the personal level, I thank him. I was thinking about what my colleague from Illinois said. I want to raise a couple of quick questions as long as we are having this debate. First of all, in terms of the explosion of the number of men and women incarcerated, I couldn't agree more. This legislation, which is all about how to deal with the drug problem and is being billed as legislation that deals with trafficking of narcotics and trying to protect people in our own country, is very one sided. I am trying to take a portion of it and say let's deal with the demand side in our country. Soon in this debate I will lay out all of the studies that have come out. It is a real scandal. In the State of Illinois and my State of Minnesota, the big part of the problem is that people are not getting treatment. I am simply saying: Can't we take a portion of this legislation, which is all about trying to protect our citizens and trying to deal with this drug trafficking, and deal with the demand side? There is no real disagreement. I think most people in our country would say: Why don't we put money in the demand side and treating people right here? My second point is that President Pastrana has made his own judgment about what he needs to do. I have tremendous respect for the President, but I think we also need to make our own judgment. In all due respect, again if we are talking about moving from police to military in a pretty dramatic way, and talking about putting ourselves right in the middle of this conflict, let's understand that we should be having a policy debate about our taking sides in this civil war. I couldn't agree more about the left or the right. You have an unbelievable number of atrocities and murder being committed by both sides. There is no question about it. The question is whether or not we have now decided we are going to be there with aid and our people supporting the military in this counterinsurgency effort. Are we going to take sides in this military conflict? I hear my colleague from Delaware say yes. I always respect his directness. But I think that is really what the debate is about. I think probably all of us need to understand, since some who have come to the floor have said they are against this amendment, if they are for the war against drugs, this is not a debate about only a war on drugs, obviously from what colleagues have said. We have been down this road before. Now we are going to say we have decided that we have to support the southern Colombia military, and we are going to put the money into this military effort. If we are going to have Americans there supporting it, we are taking sides. OK. As long as that is clear. Third, my colleague from Illinois said that the police and the military are in this together, and that they work together. I do not know. Again, I didn't have a chance to visit Colombia. But I do know, at least from sort of the one time I was in Latin America and in my own study, that I always saw in these countries a great difference between the police and the military. You see the police. They are low-level guys who do their job. The military are the ``Rambos.'' There is a difference in the groups. They are an entirely different group of people and entirely different people. In all due respect, the evidence we have right now by one human rights organization after another after another after another, much less the State Department report, is that about 70 percent of the violence has been committed thus far by paramilitary groups to which the military quite often is linked. We haven't been able to vet that. All of a sudden, we are going to be able to vet it, monitor it. We are going to be able to control it. I think that is a dubious proposition. I think by militarizing this aid package we make a big mistake. I think we could support this amendment which permits extensive assistance to Colombia while safeguarding U.S. interests and avoid entanglement in a decades-old civil conflict and partnership with an army that is implicated in human rights abuses. Moreover, I think we could take some of the resources and put them where they could do the most good, which would be providing drug treatment programs at home. I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I have a copy of Senator Leahy's statement. I am going to read a little from Senator Leahy's statement. This is just a portion of his statement: I have repeatedly expressed concerns about the administration's proposal, particularly the dramatic increase in military assistance. I am troubled about what we may be getting into. The administration has yet to give me sufficient details about what it expects to achieve, in what period of time, what the long-term costs are, or what the risks are. That is, of course, part of the position that a number of us have taken today. I thank Senator Leahy, who has a tremendous amount of expertise in this area, for his statement. He goes on to say: I commend Senator Wellstone for his amendment. It would provide $225 million for substance abuse prevention and treatment programs in the United States. According to the Office of National Drug Control Policy, drug abuse kills 52,000 Americans each year. It costs our society nearly $110 billion annually. It has strained the capacity of our criminal justice system and our medical facilities, and brought violence and tragedy to families, schools, and communities throughout this country. I could not have said it better. Mr. President, 80 percent of adolescents who need treatment--those who will, if not provided treatment, sustain the demands for drugs in the future--today in our country cannot get it. Some 50 percent of adults in our country who are in need of a drug treatment program are not receiving it. Many treatment programs have lines out the door. And the conclusion of Senator Leahy's statement: We should help Colombia. I support President Pastrana's efforts to combat the violence, corruption, and poverty which plagues his country. But I am not convinced the administration's request for ``Plan Colombia'' will effectively address those problems, nor is it likely to reduce the flow of drugs into our country or ameliorate the drug problem here at home. We do know, however, that substance abuse treatment and prevention programs work. A frequently cited Rand study showed that, dollar for dollar, providing treatment for cocaine users is 10 times more effective than drug interdiction efforts, and 23 times more effective than eradicating coca at its source. Scientific advances promise to make treatment and prevention programs even better. Ultimately, reducing the demand for drugs--which is what these programs do--is the only long-term solution to reducing the flow of illegal drugs from Colombia and elsewhere. Mr. President, I commend Senator Wellstone-- Nice of him to say-- for his leadership on this issue and I urge other Senators to support his amendment. I urge other Senators to support this amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, reserving the right to object.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Reserving the right to object. What did the Senator ask for?

Mr. WELLSTONE. Reserving the right to object. What is the Senator asking for?

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I don't know whether we have reached agreement or not or whether there will be time for discussion tomorrow. I thank my colleagues. I believe amendment No. 3568 has been accepted. This is an amendment I have offered with Senator Brownback, who is in the chair. I point out to colleagues that this amendment would use $250,000 of the funds appropriated to Kosovo to help police better identify and respond to cases of trafficking. It also would provide some help for those who live in the Newly Independent States of the former Soviet Union who have been victims of trafficking. I thank both the Senator from Kentucky and the Senator from Vermont for accepting this amendment. I especially thank Senator Brownback for the work I have been able to do with him dealing with the awful aspect of this new global economy: the trafficking of women forced into prostitution, and terrible labor conditions. We have a great piece of legislation. Both of us hope it will pass soon. This amendment to this piece of legislation is a good step in the right direction. I thank my colleague, Senator Brownback, for his support. I thank Senators for supporting this amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I rise today to once again draw attention to the continuing war in Chechnya and to urge the Administration to include Chechnya high on the agenda at next months G- 7 summit. Colleagues, last Wednesday I met with Mr. II-yas AK-ma-dov who was here to present a peace proposal on behalf of the Chechen people. This peace proposal calls for the immediate introduction of a formal cease- fire, the formation of an international commission to investigate allegations of war crimes on both sides of the conflict, and the start of political negotiations through the mediation of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe. Mr. Ak-ma-dov relayed to me his serious concern at the desperation of the people in Chechnya, and noted that many of the recent suicide attacks we have heard about are a direct result of that desperation. Mr. President, colleagues, we must seize every opportunity, including the upcoming G-7 summit, to continue to relay our serious concerns with the intransigence of the Russian Federation to acknowledge the concerns of the international community. The G-7 summit, which 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 summit in encourage its democratic evolution. Today as I watch Russia continue to deny international human rights monitors access to Chechnya in defiance of the international community, I must question that evoluation. In February this body passed Rsolution 262 which called on President Putin to allow international monitors immediate, full, and unimpeded access into and around Chechnya to report on the situation there and to investigate alleged atrocities and war crimes. In March, the Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly suspended the voting rights of Russia due to the large number of reports of human rights violations in Chechnya. And Mr. President, at the 56th Session of the U.N. Commission on Human Rights last April, the Commission harshly criticized the Russian military's behavior in Chechnya. The Commission approved a Resolution calling on the Russian government to establish a commission of inquiry into human rights abuses in Chechnya and mandating visits to Chechnya by U.N. special envoys on torture, political killings, and violence against women. Yet, despite all this condemnation, Russia continues to ignore our requests. The war in Chechnya from 1994-1996 left over 80,000 civilians dead. The number of deaths of innocent civilians rises daily as the current war continues. This is due not only to fighting, but to the inability of international organizations to easily distribute much needed humanitarian aid. A recent report from the U.N. High Commission on Refugees noted that elderly and sick people in the capital Grozny have difficulty reaching soup kitchens which are scattered throughout the city due to continued fighting. Russia has closed investigations into alleged human rights abuses by Russian soldiers citing a lack of evidence, and none of the U.N. mandated special envoys to Chechnya have been given access to the area. Just three weeks ago customs officials in Moscow confiscated an Amnesty International report on human rights violations in Chechnya. Mr. President, this body and the international community has consistently spoken out demanding the Russian government allow into Chechnya international human rights monitors. It is important that we not turn silent now. In her address to the U.N. Human Rights Commission in March, Secretary Albright said that no nation should feel threatened by the Commission's work since its task is to support the right of people everywhere to control their own destinies, and that the Commission asks only that its members play by global rules. Mr. President, colleagues, the United States must seize the opportunity of next month's G-7 summit in Japan to once again demand that Russia play by these rules. Our leadership within the G-7 and in the international community deserves no less. The people of Chechnya deserve no less. Mr. President, I had a chance to meet with the Foreign Minister from Chechnya last week. I promised him that, as a Senator, I would speak out on the floor about what is happening in Chechnya. Just to summarize, the Foreign Minister came here with a proposal. It is a proposal that really calls for a cease-fire, calls for a political settlement, calls for international observers to be there. What I want to say on the floor of the Senate is that this is a brutal war. Many innocent people have been killed. Certainly, some of the Chechans are responsible for the murder of Russians; but, overall, what we have seen is a tremendous loss of life, the decimation of a country. I have sent letters to Putin. I have spoken out about this. I think it is a human rights question. I call upon our Government, in particular, to be much more actively involved in trying to bring about some resolution to this conflict. There are entirely too many innocent people paying the price. Entirely too many innocent people are losing their lives. I think it is a role for our Government to push for some kind of a peaceful settlement. I know we need to negotiate with Putin and be in contact with the Russian Government and work with them. I am all for that. I am not at all interested in rekindling a cold war. My father is a Jewish immigrant who fled Russia. But I also believe we should not turn our gaze away from what is happening in Chechnya. We ought to make it crystal clear to the Russian Government that the wholesale violation of human rights and torture and murder of innocent people is simply not acceptable. The sooner there is some kind of a political settlement, the better off the people in Chechnya and Russia and the world will be. I don't believe there is any evidence at all that this military campaign is going to work. Violence begets violence. Violence is met with violence. I think our Government can play a more positive role than we have played. For the Senate today, I call on the Secretary of State and President Clinton to be much more actively involved in trying to bring about a resolution to this conflict.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Jill Hickson, a congressional fellow, and Tanja Rinkes and Daniel May, who are interns, have the privilege of the floor today during the consideration of the bill.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Madam President, I say to my colleague, I will be very brief on this amendment. I will try to take less than 10 minutes because Senator Smith has taken a major leadership role. I know Senator Hatch will be speaking, and I am sure my colleague from Oregon will want to be here for that debate. The only reason I am taking this time right now is I won't be able to stay beyond the next 10 or 15 minutes. I will be brief. Then the country will have a chance to hear from the Senator from Oregon. I have not read the piece, but I thank the Senator very much for his leadership. I am not a lawyer, but I want to try to briefly summarize what this bill is about. Senator Levin always does a more masterful job of that than I can. Then I will talk about why I think this piece of legislation is so important for Minnesota and people in the country. When it comes to hate crimes based on race, religion, or national origin, this legislation essentially moves beyond the very restrictive language we have right now where we can't prosecute people who have committed violent crimes against someone unless that person was involved in some kind of federally protected activity. That is way too narrow a definition. We want to be in a position as a nation where the Federal Government can prosecute, for example, those who murdered James Byrd. It is that simple. We don't want to have such narrowly restrictive laws and language-- and this is where the amendment of the Senator from Utah doesn't do us any good at all--we don't want to have such a narrow definition that we can't prosecute people when they murder a James Byrd. I think it is that simple. Secondly, we further define the hate crime legislation applied to gender, disability, and sexual orientation when there is an interstate commerce nexus. And in this particular case what we want to make sure of is that as a national community, as the Senate, as the House of Representatives, we care deeply when a Matthew Shepard is murdered, and, indeed, the Federal Government can play a role, and those who commit such a murder because of someone's sexual orientation will be prosecuted, that they will pay the price. I know there have been some arguments made against this legislation. I am sure my colleague from Oregon will take up those arguments and deal with them in more depth, but as to the argument that somehow this takes on freedom of speech, we are not talking about freedom of speech. We are not talking about somebody in the pulpit saying whatever they want to say about people because of their sexual orientation, as much as I would be in disagreement with what I think would be prejudice or, I would argue, ignorance. But we are talking about an action; we are talking about when there is an act of violence perpetrated against someone because of their sexual orientation. I am not talking about speech. I am talking about violent action. I believe strongly in this amendment and am proud to support it because I think hate crimes are very special. I came to the human rights rally in Washington, DC--it seems as though it was yesterday; maybe it was a couple months ago--I wanted to speak, and I had an opportunity to introduce Judy and Dennis Shepard. That was, for me, a much greater honor than actually giving a long speech or speaking at all. I wanted to introduce them. I have seen them at so many gatherings where they have been willing, as the parents of Matthew Shepard, who was murdered because of his sexual orientation, to go around the country and support other people and speak out and try to do everything they can in memory of their son, to make sure that this never happens again. I guess we cannot make sure it never happens again, but we can do everything possible to make sure that it never happens again. That is what this hate crimes amendment is all about--basically, what happens when there is an act of violence against someone because of the color of their skin or their religion. I am sensitive to this. My father was a Jewish immigrant born in the Ukraine, lived in Russia, fled persecution, and came to the United States of America because of religious persecution. When you have this kind of violence against someone because of their religion or their national origin or their gender or their disability or their race or their sexual orientation, it is terrorism because what you are saying to a whole lot of other people is it could happen to you, too. That is the purpose of a lot of these crimes. You are saying to other people who are gay and lesbian, you are saying to other people because of their religion, sometimes you are saying to other people because they are white--not that long ago I think it was in Pittsburgh we saw people murdered just because of the color of their skin; they were white--what you are saying with these kinds of hate crimes is: other people, you could be next. What you are doing is you are creating a whole second class of citizens who have to live their lives in terror. What you are doing is dehumanizing people. That is what these hate crimes are about. Now, we should have a high threshold--I am not a lawyer, but we should have a high threshold. We want to make sure that truly these are hate crimes. And believe me, that will have to be proven in our court system. But, colleagues, in all due respect, you have an amendment here that does a good job of getting beyond the very narrow definition so that, indeed, we have a definition of a hate crime that applies to the murder of a James Byrd; we have a definition of a hate crime that applies to the murder of a Matthew Shepard, and I don't know how Senators can vote against it. It is long past time that we passed such a law. We must and I hope we will. I yield the floor.

Mr. WELLSTONE

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

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I send a modified amendment to the desk, and I ask unanimous consent I be allowed to modify amendment 3366.

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

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, this Defense appropriations bill before us is a $3 billion increase over the administration's request. It is almost $20 billion more than we appropriated last year. Although for the past 2 years we have been focused on the readiness crisis--I think an important focus--the largest increase this year is not for personnel or operations or maintenance but for the procurement of weapons. This bill increases the amount of money for procurement of weapons almost 11 percent over last year. Let me just remind my colleagues that at the end of the cold war, a somewhat different era, this appropriations altogether is 2.5 times the military budgets of Russia and China and the six countries deemed to be the greatest threats to our Nation. At a time when others recognize that the potential military threats to national security have declined dramatically, we have not. At a time when others want to put more emphasis on not just military readiness, which we must have, but other diplomatic solutions, multilateral efforts, we have not. What I am doing in this amendment altogether is calling for a transfer across the board from this additional money for procurement, the 11-percent increase--a budget, again, that is $3 billion above what the President himself requested. I am saying we ought to take about $922 million, not quite $1 billion --I am trying to keep this amendment consistent with budgetary rules--and transfer that to education for kids. It is not a lot of money, but it would make a huge difference. Part of what I am talking about is basically a transfer of a little less than $1 billion from the Pentagon to the Department of Education, specifically focused on the title I program. By transferring to title I this $1 billion, which ends up to be about $922 million after taking into account the costs of this reduction, this amendment is one step toward restoring some Federal funding for education that I think is very consistent with the definition of national security. I define national security as, for sure, military readiness. But I also define national security as the security of our local communities. That includes making sure we do the very best by our children. That includes making sure that we as a nation do everything we can to live up to our national vow of equal opportunity for every child. This amendment is all about our priorities. I look at the budget and I see a mismatch between some of our national ideals and goals in the speeches we give of what we say we care about and our actual spending priorities. The Senate committee reported out an education bill that would increase overall appropriations for education by $4.65 billion from fiscal year 2000 to fiscal year 2001. At the same time, the Department of Defense appropriations bill increased spending by $20 billion-- Education, $4.65 billion; Department of Defense, $20 billion. We lead the world in our spending on defense, which is fine, but at the same time, we rank tenth in the world when it comes to education spending. Over the past 20 years, the Department of Education share of the Federal budget has shrunk from 2.5 to 2 percent. During the same time, the Federal share of education dollars has shrunk from 12 cents to 7 cents on the dollar. This is not the direction in which we need to be moving. People we represent in our States are focused on education. They think we ought to be doing better. I understand full well, I say to my colleagues, Democrats and Republicans, much of K-12 is State government spending. But we can be and should be a real player in certain decisive areas. We should be putting much more into early childhood development so children come to kindergarten ready to learn. We should be doing much better by way of funding the IDEA program. There is probably not a school board or school district in the country that does not believe this is an unfunded mandate, where they are called upon to meet children's special needs or called upon to support children with special needs but they do not get the Federal funding to which they are entitled. The other critical program is the title I program. Actually, there is not a more important program than title I. We had an amendment to double the authorization for title I, part A, to $15 billion. Senator Harkin was one of the leaders on that. It passed the HELP committee with the support of every Democrat and every Republican Senator, but I think we were only able to raise the appropriation by several million dollars, as I remember it, I say to my colleague Senator Harkin. I want to transfer $1 billion to the title I program, and I want to talk about why. But first of all, when it comes to our priorities, when it comes to our commitment to education as opposed to just a commitment on the Pentagon budget, let me remind my colleagues, in a recent bipartisan poll: 60 percent of the American people say we spend too little on education; 40 percent of the people in our country say education should be the top funding priority in this year's budget; 75 percent of the American people say they would be willing to pay higher taxes to improve education; and 83 percent of Americans say we should equalize funding across districts, even if it means we should transfer funds from wealthy to poor districts. It is absolutely amazing, the support that is out there. The title I program is a key investment, and we ought to be doing much better. Title I provides assistance to students who face the greatest educational barriers. They are the students whose parents have not had the educational opportunities or the luck in their life that many of us have had. Many of their parents are illiterate. Many of the parents of the students are poor. These are the students struggling to meet academic challenges. These are the children, the most vulnerable children, who need and deserve the support. Title I is used to fund the types of programs for these kids, for just such youth. We know they work. As an example, 100 percent of major city schools use title I funds to provide professional development and new technology for students. We have been saying on the floor of the Senate and back in our States that the most important thing we can do to improve education is to have good teachers. That also includes good teachers for these children who are in the title I program. We have been talking about the digital divide. We have been saying it is not right that in this country, those school districts, those wealthy communities, can be wired; they have access to the best technology. Those students will be equipped and they will be ready to do well. Students who come from poor districts and come from lower- income families, in those lower-income districts with less property wealth, they do not have access to this kind of technology. Title I money is used for that. Mr. President, 97 percent of the major city schools use title I money to support afterschool activities. We have been through this debate. You can go to any neighborhood. I do not think, I say to Senator Harkin, it is just in the cities. I think it also applies to the smaller towns and rural communities. You can talk to the religious community; You can talk to the law enforcement community; You can talk to parents; You can talk to teachers; You can talk to support staff; You can talk to youth workers; They will all say: We need to have some positive programs and activity and support for kids after school, especially when many of them go home and both parents are working. We need to do that. Ninety percent of these schools use title I funds to support family, literacy and summer school programs, and 68 percent use title I funds to support preschool programs. Title I has shown some strong success, despite its underfunding. I point out to my colleagues that this amendment is a matter of priorities. Again, there is an 11-percent increase in procurement, $3 billion more in this budget than the administration even asked. I am not talking about readiness programs. I am talking about a different world in which we live. When are we going to reorder some of our priorities and put just a little bit more of this investment in our children? When are we going to do better by children in our country? Right now this title I program--which can be so important for educational development, can be so important in making sure these kids get the help they need, can be so important in making sure their parents become literate so they can help them read at home, can be so important for afterschool programs, can be so important in trying to make sure that when these kids come to kindergarten they are ready to learn--right now we fund the title I program at a 30-percent level. That is to say, over 70 percent of the kids who could benefit do not benefit because there is no money. In my State of Minnesota, in our cities, after you get to schools that do not have 65 percent of the kids who are low income but only have 60 percent of the kids who are low income, they do not get title I money whatsoever because we have run out of funds. Yet consider this: The largest gains in test scores over the past 30 years have been made by poor and minority students. One-third to one- half the gap between affluent whites and their poor minority counterparts has closed during this time--again because of the special help from the title I program. A study by the Rand Corporation linked these gains to title I and other investments in these programs that give these kids more assistance. The final report of the ``National Assessment of Title I'' by the U.S. Department of Education showed that the NEAP, National Assessment of Educational Progress, scores for 9-year-olds in the Nation's highest poverty schools have increased over the past 10 years by 9 points in reading and 8 points in math. The Council of Greater City Schools shows that 24 of the Nation's largest schools were able to decrease the number of fourth grade title I students achieving in the lowest quartile by 14 percent in reading and 10 percent in math in part due to the support of title I dollars. In my State of Minnesota, for example, the Brainerd Public School District has a 70- to 80-percent success rate in accelerating students in the bottom 20 percent of their class to the average of their class following 1 year of title I-supported reading programs. This is a successful program that directs resources to the poorest school districts in America. Forty-six percent of title I funds go to the poorest 15 percent of all schools in our country, according to a GAO report. Seventy-five percent of title I funds go to schools where the majority of children are poor, according to the U.S. Department of Education report. The General Accounting Office estimates that title I has increased funding to schools serving poor children by 77 percent, and yet we fund this at about one-third of the level that is needed and it is unconscionable. Yesterday I was in New York City. I went to a school, P.S. 30, in the Mott Haven community in the south Bronx, one of the poorest communities in the United States of America. I went there because I have such great respect for the work of Jon Kozol. Jon Kozol wrote a book called ``Amazing Grace: The Lives of Children and the Conscience of a Nation.'' Now he has written another book, ``Ordinary Resurrections.'' It is a book full of hope. It is about three children and it is about this special school. The principal's name is Miss Rosa, Aida Rosa, who came from Puerto Rico 3 years ago. Her friends keep telling her to retire, but this woman will not give up on these children. When one visits such a school, part of the trip is inspiring and part of it is indignation swelling inside, which is why I am here. It is inspiring that Miss Rosa will not give up on these kids. I say to my colleagues, not one child in the classes I visited was white. Not one child I met comes from a family with an income over $10,000 a year. There are families in America--maybe some of our families--who spend that much on one vacation. These children come from families with incomes of less than $10,000 a year. They are Latino Latina. They are African American. They are poor. About 30 percent of these children suffer from asthma. One can see the pumps they carry because they have these asthma attacks. Thirty to 35 percent of these children suffer from asthma. It is no wonder. There is an incinerator a block away. The air is so polluted. This happens in a lot of poor communities. Miss Rosa does not give up on these children, the teachers do not give up on these children, and Jonathan Kozol does not give up on these children. My point is it is inspiring, but these children could do much better if we would get the resources to the schools. In my state of Minnesota, it is the same thing with Jackson Elementary School in St. Paul. I can think of elementary schools, junior high schools, and high schools I have visited. I visit a school every 2 weeks in my State. Over and over what these teachers say and what these principals say is: We are doing our best. Do not give up on any of these children. We know what works. We make sure when these children come to school they know they are loved. We hold them to high standards and expect them to do well. Never give up on them. Make sure that teachers are free to teach, and make sure we have an environment that emphasizes education and does not sell one child short. We sell these children short. I do not understand our priorities. I do not understand why our commitment to education is such a small percentage of our Federal budget. I do not understand how we can take a program such as the title I program--which is so important for low-income children and could make such a positive difference in their lives, would get more resources to some of these schools and some of these men and women who are teachers and principals and should be famous for the work they do--and fund it at a 30-percent or 35-percent level. I do not think it does any harm to who we are or what we are about as a nation to take less than $1 billion out of the procurement budget across the board and put it into the title I program. We ourselves, as I said, in the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, voted to double the amount of money for title I. Yet we barely added any additional dollars to this critically important program. The Nation's poorest schools are dramatically underfunded, they are dramatically understaffed, and they are dramatically under resourced. Title I helps get some of those resources to these communities. If title I was fully funded, Minnesota would receive about $160 million more to educate needy students and almost 240,000 more students could be served. I am on the floor of the Senate to fight for these children in my State. Whatever the final vote is, if I can speak for a program that could make a difference in the lives of 240,000 more students in the State of Minnesota who are low-income kids, then I am going to do so, whether there is 1 vote for this amendment or whether there are 100 votes for this amendment. I do not understand our priorities. Whatever happened to our national vow of equal opportunity for every child? How can we be talking today about how we are going to have tests and we are going to hold everybody accountable, but we do not make sure these children have the same opportunity to do well on these tests? Why are we not investing in the achievement and the future of all the children in our country? It is heartbreaking to visit these schools. It is inspiring but, at the same time, I come back to the Senate and say to myself: What can I do? When I visit these schools and meet these kids in any given class--yesterday I said to a lot of the teachers, to Miss Rosa, and others in the Mott Haven community in south Bronx, New York City: In the State of Minnesota--they did not believe it--in the cities of St. Paul and Minneapolis, we have many of the same populations. The majority of our students are not white, Caucasian. In any given class, kids come from homes where different languages are spoken. Four or five different languages are spoken in the homes from which these kids come. There are some 90 different languages and dialects that are spoken in children's homes in Minneapolis and 70 in St. Paul. These children are also disproportionately low income, and they need the additional support if they are going to make it. It would seem to me we ought to make sure of that. I am heavily influenced by the work of Jonathan Kozol. I love Jonathan's work over the years. He said something in his book that I am going to say on the floor of the Senate in my own words because I do this all the time. I will come to the floor of the Senate, and I will say: Come on, less than $1 billion to the title I program, which is so underfunded in all of our States and, I say to my colleague from Montana, the rural communities. I made a big mistake of not talking about greater Minnesota or rural America. We do not have the funding. Every teacher and every educational assistant and every principal and every parent who cares about education in these communities will tell you they do not have the funding and that we should do better. But here is my point today. I could come out here on the floor and say: With this additional money for title I, if we make the investment in these children, who are, by definition, low-income children, then we will save money later on because fewer of them will drop out of school--and that is true--and we will save money because fewer of them will turn to alcohol and drugs--and that is true--and we will save money because they will be more economically successful and more productive--and that is true--and we will save money by investing a little more money in the title I program because fewer of these children will wind up dropping out of school and ending up in prison-- and that is true. But you want to know something. We ought to spend this additional money, $1 billion, or a little less than $1 billion, in title I for another reason: Many of these children are little children; They are under 4 feet tall, and we should be nice to them. We should care about them. We should get some resources into these schools, even if it is not in our self-interest. We should do it because it is the right thing to do. That is why we should do this. Forget all the arguments about investment and how it will help our economy. I came out here earlier and said: We should consider this in a national security framework. No. I scratch everything I said, though keeping it in the Congressional Record. We should transfer this small amount of money from this Pentagon budget to the title I program because we should care about these children. We should care about them. We should be nice to them. We should want them to do well. Many of them come from neighborhoods with some pretty difficult circumstances in their lives. I say to my colleagues, you might have wanted to spend a little time in the Mott Haven community yesterday. It is incredible, some of the difficult conditions in which children not only survive but flourish. Why don't we just give them a little more assistance? I really believe this is an important amendment. I want to again summarize for my colleagues a little bit of what I am trying to say. Again, please remember that it is one thing to talk about a readiness crisis. The big increase was in procurement. Less than a $1 billion cut in procurement is hardly anything when it comes to the Pentagon budget. This appropriations bill is $3 billion more than the administration's budget request. This year, the education bill has an overall appropriation for education of $4.65 billion--an increase. At the same time, the Pentagon budget goes up $20 billion. I say to all of my colleagues, I think this is an important amendment. All of us know of the title I program. All of us know the difference it can make in children's lives. All of us say we care about these children. This is an opportunity to basically match our vote with our rhetoric. This is, I will admit, a reordering-of-priorities amendment on a small scale because, after all, this is $3 billion the administration didn't want. This bill is close to $300 billion. Can't we take $1 billion of this and do a little bit better by way of title I? I will not end my remarks because I want to wait to hear what my colleagues say. But I will kind of finish up this part of my statement with a point that I do not like to make but I believe strongly about. So I am going to do it. I will say, some of my colleagues that I see on the floor--Senator Inouye and Senator Burns--and Senator Inouye I especially believe I know well and know what he cares about--I do not think this applies to either one of my colleagues, regardless of how they vote; it can't because I know what Senator Inouye, in particular, is about. But, in general--so let me say this is not exactly just in relation to this amendment--I find that people in politics, in both parties, will relish having a chance to have a photo taken of them reading with a child. We are all for the children, and we say they are 100 percent of our future, but we are a dollar short when it comes to making the investment in their lives. In particular, the unfinished agenda is poor children in America. It is incredible, but we have some 14 million poor children in our country today with its booming economy. Many of them, disproportionately, are of color. Many of them are in our inner cities. Some are in our inner suburbs, and some are in our rural areas. Many of the parents of these children didn't have the money to put them into the best developmental child care. They didn't have the great prekindergarten teachers. Some children did. And their parents--a single parent or both parents--are both working long hours. They don't have the money. They can't spend $10,000, $12,000, $14,000 a year for great child care. They come to kindergarten behind. They have not had some of the benefits that come from a family where your parents have more of an education and a much higher income. But you want to know something. I saw it yesterday in P.S. 30. I saw it yesterday in the Mott Haven community. I see it in Minnesota. Those children have the most beautiful eyes. They have the greatest determination. They are full of excitement and they are full of hope. They believe in the American dream, even though they never say it that way. By the time they are in high school, most of it is gone. I think we ought to be doing better. I think these children ought to figure into our priorities. We all know the title I program is vastly underfunded. It is an embarrassment. Can't we at least put another $922 million in this next year? Can't we do a little bit better by these children? Mr. President, for now, I yield the floor.

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

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senators Boxer and Harkin be added as cosponsors of my amendment.

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

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

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on my amendment.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, this is a $290 billion budget altogether. This amendment takes $1 billion from procurement, not from readiness. This takes $1 billion. This overall budget is $3 billion more than the President requested. It puts the money into the title I program. This is a matter of priorities. This is a program that helps poor children in America, never mind that it helps them do better in school, never mind that it helps them graduate, never mind that it helps them contribute to our economy, never mind that it leads to less high school dropout, never mind it leads to less children winding up incarcerated and in prison. Vote for this because most of these children are under 4 feet tall and they are all beautiful and they deserve our support. The title I program is funded right now at a 35-percent level. This is a matter of priorities. People in the country believe we should do better by these children. We should do better by these children. It is $1 billion out of all the procurement--$57 billion--that goes to children in title I. I hope Senators will vote for this. I yield the floor.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I yield back my time.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I was not recognized for 5 minutes.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I say to my colleague from Virginia, if my colleague wants the floor right now, I ask unanimous consent that after the Senator from Virginia, I follow him.