Paul Wellstone

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from New Jersey. We have an economy that is booming. We have record low levels of unemployment. We have Government coffers that are overflowing. We have a predicted $3 trillion surplus over the next 10 years. We are still being told by this budget resolution that we can't afford in our country to provide a good education for every child; we can't afford good health care for citizens; we can't afford to do something about the poverty of 14 million children in our country. In the words of Rabbi Hill, ``If not now, when?'' This Republican budget resolution provides a very discouraging answer to Rabbi Hill's question. This budget resolution says to Rabbi Hill, ``Not now and probably not ever.'' The tradeoff is simple. You have huge tax cuts disproportionately flowing to wealthier, high-income citizens. You have in a post-world- war era a bloated military budget. But you have a budget resolution that does not invest in the health, the skill, the intellect, and the character of our children, and you have a budget resolution that in nondefense discretionary spending calls for cuts with a booming economy. We will see cuts in Head Start, new teachers, reducing class size, home-delivered meals to seniors, and environmental cleanup. We will not do well in this new century, and we will not have the successful economy or the successful moral nation Senator Graham talks about, if we don't provide a good education for every child. We will not do as well as we can do as a nation in this new century if we don't invest in the skills development of our children. We will not do as well as we could and must do as a nation and national community if we don't invest in the health of our children. We, the United States of America, the good country, will not be better unless we make this investment in our children. By that standard, this budget is sorely lacking. I will vote against it. I yield the floor.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I rise today on behalf of myself and Senators Daschle and Baucus to introduce the Rural Telework Act of 2000, a bill that is designed to make information technology (IT) industries 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 informaiton technology become the new engines of our economy, it is critical that all 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 exceed 50% 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. The Rural Telework Act of 2000 would authorize the Department of Agriculture to make competitive grants to qualified organizations to implement five year projects to train, connect, and broker employment in the private sector, through telework, a population of rural workers in their community. A grant recipient would be desgnated as a National Center for Distance Working. The National Centers for Distance Working, located in rural areas, are intended to be locally developed and implemented national models of how telework relationships can meet the needs of rural communities for new economic opportunities and the need of IT intensive industries for new workers. 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 (ITAC), 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 modern 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. Establishment of a National Center for Distance Working in a rural community or Indian reservation will give that community 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. Successful National Centers for Distance Work would be locally developed and implemented national models for how telework can be used as a tool for rural development. The Department of Agriculture's Rural Utility Service (RUS) would administer the program which would have a $11 million annual authorization level. At least $10 million of authorized funds would be used for the purpose of making competitive grants to establish National Centers for Distance Working. Grant money made available under the program would be highly flexible, and would need to be leveraged with private, local and state resources. For example, they could be used to provide or enhance the quality of: IT skills training and education, technology and telecommunications, promotion of teleworking, brokering employment for rural IT workers, and other necessary elements to establish IT work opportunities in that rural community. The funds are not intended to duplicate existing federal training and connectivity programs. Nor is it intended that Centers use these funds to supplant existing telecommunications providers who offer appropriate services to make telework a reality in rural communities. Rather, the federal investment is targeted to augment these existing sources of funding and allow rural communities to fill in the gaps in existing public and private resources and services. Prospective grant recipients would need to form partnerships with local, state, and private entities, including potential employers. The grants made available under this program would not be sufficient to cover the full cost of training, connecting, and employing rural workers, but are intended to be ``seed money'' leveraged with dollars from other sources. Grant recipients would be required to match the funds provided under this program with funds from non-federal sources. Finally, up to $1 million of the $11 million could be used by RUS to make grants for the purpose of promoting the development of teleworking in rural areas by making grants to entities to conduct research on economics, operational, social, and policy issues related to teleworking in rural areas, including the development of best practices for businesses that employ teleworkers. The necessary vision 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 do 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 the country. Mr. President, 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 legislation offers an early opportunity to invest in local innovation to harness this potential. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I rise today on behalf of myself and Senators Daschle and Baucus to introduce the Rural Telework Act of 2000, a bill that is designed to make information technology (IT) industries 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 informaiton technology become the new engines of our economy, it is critical that all 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 exceed 50% 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. The Rural Telework Act of 2000 would authorize the Department of Agriculture to make competitive grants to qualified organizations to implement five year projects to train, connect, and broker employment in the private sector, through telework, a population of rural workers in their community. A grant recipient would be desgnated as a National Center for Distance Working. The National Centers for Distance Working, located in rural areas, are intended to be locally developed and implemented national models of how telework relationships can meet the needs of rural communities for new economic opportunities and the need of IT intensive industries for new workers. 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 (ITAC), 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 modern 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. Establishment of a National Center for Distance Working in a rural community or Indian reservation will give that community 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. Successful National Centers for Distance Work would be locally developed and implemented national models for how telework can be used as a tool for rural development. The Department of Agriculture's Rural Utility Service (RUS) would administer the program which would have a $11 million annual authorization level. At least $10 million of authorized funds would be used for the purpose of making competitive grants to establish National Centers for Distance Working. Grant money made available under the program would be highly flexible, and would need to be leveraged with private, local and state resources. For example, they could be used to provide or enhance the quality of: IT skills training and education, technology and telecommunications, promotion of teleworking, brokering employment for rural IT workers, and other necessary elements to establish IT work opportunities in that rural community. The funds are not intended to duplicate existing federal training and connectivity programs. Nor is it intended that Centers use these funds to supplant existing telecommunications providers who offer appropriate services to make telework a reality in rural communities. Rather, the federal investment is targeted to augment these existing sources of funding and allow rural communities to fill in the gaps in existing public and private resources and services. Prospective grant recipients would need to form partnerships with local, state, and private entities, including potential employers. The grants made available under this program would not be sufficient to cover the full cost of training, connecting, and employing rural workers, but are intended to be ``seed money'' leveraged with dollars from other sources. Grant recipients would be required to match the funds provided under this program with funds from non-federal sources. Finally, up to $1 million of the $11 million could be used by RUS to make grants for the purpose of promoting the development of teleworking in rural areas by making grants to entities to conduct research on economics, operational, social, and policy issues related to teleworking in rural areas, including the development of best practices for businesses that employ teleworkers. The necessary vision 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 do 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 the country. Mr. President, 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 legislation offers an early opportunity to invest in local innovation to harness this potential. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I come to the Senate floor today to recognize the numerous contributions that millions German-Americans have made to the United States, and introduce a resolution to designate the Hermann Monument in New Ulm, Minnesota, a national monument. German-Americans have been an integral part of American history, shaping our artistic, cultural, military and political foundations. Friedrich Muhlenbert, the first Speaker of the House of Representatives, baseball great Babe Ruth, and artist Oscar Hammerstein are just three out of millions of German-Americans who have contributed to the creation of a diverse American culture. Today, German-Americans compose nearly 25% of the American population, making them the largest ethnic group in the United States. Despite this vast number of German- Americans and the significant impact they have had on all facets of American life, unfortunately there is no nationally recognized symbol honoring German-Americans. The Hermann Monument provides us with an opportunity as a nation to recognize the contributions of German-Americans, past and present. The monument is a unique copper statue of Hermann the Cheruscan, created in 1889 as a tribute to the struggle and triumph of German immigrants who came to the United States. The Hermann monument has become a symbol of unity and endurance to all American-Germans. It appropriately stands tall over New Ulm, Minnesota, a city where nearly 75 percent of the population is of German heritage. Designating the Hermann Monument as a National German American Monument will re-enforce the important contributions that millions of German-Americans have made to our nation. It is with this goal that I introduce this resolution, and urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I actually want to proceed to morning business to introduce a bill, but having listened to the majority leader and having listened to Senator Daschle, I want to briefly respond to what I have heard on the floor of the Senate. This is the Senate, and I thank Senator Daschle for representing me as a Senator from Minnesota so I can represent the people in Minnesota. This proposal the Republicans have brought to the floor can easily be debated tomorrow. Senator Daschle made a proposal where there would be other amendments. They would be limited to an hour equally divided and up-or-down votes. It is a matter of whether or not my colleagues, the majority leader, and others, want to vote and want to be accountable for votes. As it turns out, in the Senate, we come to the floor and we try to represent the people in our States. We will have an opportunity to focus on the Republicans' proposal. The problem with their proposal is it blows the budget, and the hundreds of billions of dollars that go into their proposal disproportionately go to people at the top. It is money that can be invested in other areas. There are a number of Senators with amendments. Our amendments say some of that money, as my colleague from Montana mentioned, should be invested in kids and education; some of that money should be invested in making sure prescription drugs are affordable for senior citizens and others. In my particular case, the proposal I talked about--and I have worked with Senator Dorgan, Senator Snowe, and others on it--essentially says that when it comes to FDA-approved drugs in our country, there should be a way for our pharmacists and wholesalers to import those drugs back from other countries at half the cost and pass that savings on to consumers. That is called free trade. As a matter of fact, then people have less to deduct and there is less of a penalty. My point is, with all due respect--and I am just speaking for myself--for too long the majority leader has come out here and has basically said: I am not going to let other Senators come out here with amendments that deal with issues that are important to the lives of people they represent; I am going to insist on only the amendments I say you can do, and if you are not willing to do that, I will file cloture and that is it. That is not the way I remember the Senate operating for most of the years that I have been here. The thing that I have always loved about the Senate, the thing that I think has led to some really great Senators, is the ability for Senators to offer amendments, to speak out for the people they represent, to have up-or-down votes, and we would go at it. If it takes us a week, it takes us a week. If we start early in the morning, and we go late in the night, that is the way we do it. We are legislators. We are out here advocating and speaking and fighting for people we represent. I thank Senator Daschle from South Dakota for essentially saying there is no way we are going to let the majority leader basically dictate to us what issues we should care about, what amendments we get to offer. We have a different view about good tax policy. We have a different view about how to get the benefits to families. We also have a different view about other priorities that we ought to be dealing with on the floor of the Senate as well. I will tell you, coming from a State where 65 percent of the elderly people have no prescription drug coverage whatsoever, I would like to see the Senate get serious on that issue. I would like to have an up- or-down vote. I would like to thank the minority leader for protecting my rights. Finally, I ask the Chair, how much time do I have left?

Mr. WELLSTONE. I yield the floor.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I rise to introduce a bill today. I would like to thank my colleague, Senator Brownback, for his superb work. It is called the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000. Basically, this is legislation I am doing together with Senator Brownback. We are very hopeful we will have strong support in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, starting with the chairman. The long and the short of it, colleagues, is, though, it is hard to believe, in the year 2000, there are maybe 50,000 women and children trafficked to our country, maybe as many as 2 million worldwide. It is a dark, dark feature of this new world economy, where women and children are basically responding to ads, going to other countries, believing they will find employment; and they are forced into prostitution, they are forced into labor, and the conditions are absolutely atrocious. It is unbelievable what has happened to these women and children. Therefore, we put an emphasis on, No. 1, prevention, to make sure that through AID we get information out to people in other countries, so women and children are not entrapped in this way. No. 2, we want to make sure there are alternatives, such as good microloan programs, like NGOs for women. No. 3, we put an emphasis on how we can provide some protection, which has to do with making sure if women step forward they are not automatically deported. There would be an extension of their visa so they would be able to speak out without worrying about being deported from our country. We would make sure there is treatment for women who have gone through this living hell. Finally, there would be prosecution. Making it crystal clear to those who are engaged in trafficking, you are going to be hit with stiff financial penalties. Senator Feinstein, who is on the floor, has been a strong supporter of trying to do something about this, and to make sure that if you are going to traffic a child under the age of 14 for forced prostitution, you are going to serve a life sentence in prison. We are going to call on the international community to take this seriously. I believe there will be strong support in the Senate. It would be a powerful and important human rights piece of legislation. I am proud to introduce this legislation today. I think we can move it in committee. I think we can have strong bipartisan support. I thank Senator Brownback, Senator Feinstein, Senator Boxer, and others for their interest. Mr. President, I am here today to introduce legislation to help end the horrific crime of trafficking in persons, particularly women and children, for the purposes of sexual exploitation and forced labor. This egregious human rights violation--and we must acknowledge trafficking in persons as the gross human rights abuse that it is--is a worldwide problem that must be confronted in domestic legislation as we continue to fight it on the international front. At this very moment the administration is involved in negotiations in Vienna to strengthen international efforts to combat trafficking. We too must do our part. We need to enact a comprehensive trafficking bill into law in this Congress. Senator Brownback and I have worked together closely to develop the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000, and we agree on every provision of the bill except for one. We are here together today to introduce separate trafficking bills but to relay to you the truly bipartisan effort this has been. Senator Brownback, I look forward to continuing this effort as our respective bills move through the committee and to the floor. Despite increasing governmental and international interest, trafficking in persons continues to be one of the darkest aspects of globalization of the world economy, becoming more insidious and more widespread everyday. It is not just a problem that takes place on distant shores, as many of us have been led to believe. A recent CIA analysis of the international trafficking of women to the United States reports that as many as 50,000 women and children each year are brought into the United States and forced to work as prostitutes, forced laborers, and servants. Others credibly estimate that the number is probably much higher than that. In a hearing last week, I heard the almost unbelievable testimony of several women who had been victims of trafficking. But, I say almost unbelievable because I heard the truth directly from the mouths of those who have been hurt the most. One victim trafficked for sex from Mexico to Florida at the age of 14 told, Because I was a virgin, the men decided to initiate me by raping me again and again, to teach me how to have sex * * * Because I was so young, I was always in demand with the customers. It was awful. Although the men were supposed to wear condoms, some didn't so I eventually became pregnant and was forced to have an abortion. I am here today to say that one victim is one too many. We have a serious problem that must be addressed. The Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000 is a comprehensive bill that addresses the three P's of trafficking: it aims to prevent trafficking in persons, provides protection and assistance to those who have been trafficked, and provides for tough prosecution and punishment of those responsible for trafficking. This bill addresses the underlying problems which fuel the trafficking industry by promoting public awareness campaigns, and initiatives to enhance economic opportunity, such as microcredit lending programs and skills training, for those most susceptible to trafficking. It provides for the establishment of programs designed to assist in the safe reintegration of victims into their community, and ensures that such programs address the physical and mental health needs of trafficking victims. In fact, the trauma that results from being trafficked is not unlike that of someone who has been tortured, and victims of trafficking deserve similar assistance. This bill also provides immigration relief and allows victims of trafficking the time necessary to bring charges against those responsible for their condition. In the United States, many trafficking victims are deported for not having the appropriate legal documents when, in fact, it is often the trafficker who has given the victim false documents, or held the victim's identifying documents so that he or she could not move freely. This bill addresses this unintended result of the law. This measure enhances our existing legal structures, criminalizing all forms of trafficking in persons and establishing punishment which is commensurate with the heinous nature of this crime. It provides for sentences of up to life in prison for those criminals involved in trafficking children. Those criminals who are involved in trafficking, from the lowest to the highest levels, should not expect to go unpunished in the United States or abroad, and neither should governments whose governments might be complicit in trafficking. This bill requires an expansion of reporting on trafficking in the annual Country Reports on Human Rights Practices, including a separate list of countries of origin, transit or destination for a significant number of trafficking victims which are not meeting minimum standards for the elimination of trafficking. This bill provides for sanctions against counties which do not meet these minimum standards. It also authorizes the Secretary of State to publish a list of foreign persons involved in trafficking, and authorizes the President to take tough action against any person on that list. A similar bill to our bills is moving through the House. Both that bill, H.R. 3244, and the bills that we are introducing today, are bipartisan efforts that deserve our full consideration. Senator Brownback and I have worked hard to create a bill that is comprehensive and addresses both of our concerns, and both of us are equally committed to the fight against trafficking. We disagree, however, on a small but significant part of the strategy in this fight: the use of mandatory versus discretionary sanctions against countries which do not meet the minimum standards for elimination of trafficking. While Senator Brownback believes a system of mandatory sanctions will better facilitate our goal to eliminate trafficking, after much research into the effect of a mandatory sanctions requirement, I believe a discretionary sanctions approach, allowing for a more targeted use of sanctions, together with a requirement for the delivery to Congress of a separate list of countries involved in trafficking, is the better approach. Trafficking exploits poor women and booms in societies undergoing severe economic distress. To impose economic sanctions in trafficking legislation that cuts off a broad range of bilateral and multilateral assistance programs designed to improve the economy of specific nations is to cause harm to the very people who might be helped by the legislation. For example, I don't believe we can justify cutting off funding designed to foster economic reform so that those most susceptible to trafficking such as women and children, can find work; or cutting off funding for programs that increase professionalism and independence in the judicial system so that traffickers can be held accountable; or even cutting off programs designed to provide training and technical assistance to countries which are generally making an effort to combat trafficking. This is what could happen to certain countries which are known to have a severe trafficking problem, under a mandatory sanctions regime. I don't believe we justify cutting off child survival and disease programs which counter the spread of HIV and AIDS, a significant problem among women trafficked into the sex industry, to countries in which sex trafficking is a large problem such as the Philippines and Bangladesh. These are just a couple of examples of the problems created by a sanctions regime that is too broad. A more targeted, discretionary sanctions approach to sanctions is, I think, clearly the way to go. By requiring a list of countries involved in trafficking who do not meet minimum standards for the elimination of it, we can closely monitor the progress of countries in their fight against trafficking. Trafficking in persons is a complicated issue that almost always involves larger criminal elements. Those countries which are truly committed to ending this gross human rights abuse, and are cooperating in the global battle against it, should not fear the list since they will not be put on it. Those countries which are not doing their share should expect that the President of the United States will use his discretion to impose targeted sanctions, and I for one will do all I can to see that our government imposes appropriate sanctions against those governments whose officials are complicit in this terrible crime. Sanctions can be an important deterrent. However, in my opinion broad mandatory sanctions within the context of trafficking are not useful. A discretionary sanctions regime that allows the President--who is, in fact, better positioned to understand the varying dynamics and extent of the trafficking problem from country to country--to impose specific, targeted, and workable sanctions against trafficking countries is a more sound approach. I hope my colleagues will take a look at both of these trafficking bills and cosponsor one or the other as they move forward. These bills are identical except for the sanctions provision, and both provide the same broad and comprehensive assistance to trafficking victims and to countries working to combat trafficking. Since my wife and I began working on this issue several years ago, I have met with trafficking victims, after-care providers, and human rights advocates from around the world who have reminded me again and again of the horrible nature of this crime. We must intensify our work to eliminate trafficking in persons. We must focus our energy on this bipartisan effort to see the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000 move quickly through the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and get passed into law this year. The many victims of trafficking deserve no less.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I rise to introduce a bill today. I would like to thank my colleague, Senator Brownback, for his superb work. It is called the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000. Basically, this is legislation I am doing together with Senator Brownback. We are very hopeful we will have strong support in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, starting with the chairman. The long and the short of it, colleagues, is, though, it is hard to believe, in the year 2000, there are maybe 50,000 women and children trafficked to our country, maybe as many as 2 million worldwide. It is a dark, dark feature of this new world economy, where women and children are basically responding to ads, going to other countries, believing they will find employment; and they are forced into prostitution, they are forced into labor, and the conditions are absolutely atrocious. It is unbelievable what has happened to these women and children. Therefore, we put an emphasis on, No. 1, prevention, to make sure that through AID we get information out to people in other countries, so women and children are not entrapped in this way. No. 2, we want to make sure there are alternatives, such as good microloan programs, like NGOs for women. No. 3, we put an emphasis on how we can provide some protection, which has to do with making sure if women step forward they are not automatically deported. There would be an extension of their visa so they would be able to speak out without worrying about being deported from our country. We would make sure there is treatment for women who have gone through this living hell. Finally, there would be prosecution. Making it crystal clear to those who are engaged in trafficking, you are going to be hit with stiff financial penalties. Senator Feinstein, who is on the floor, has been a strong supporter of trying to do something about this, and to make sure that if you are going to traffic a child under the age of 14 for forced prostitution, you are going to serve a life sentence in prison. We are going to call on the international community to take this seriously. I believe there will be strong support in the Senate. It would be a powerful and important human rights piece of legislation. I am proud to introduce this legislation today. I think we can move it in committee. I think we can have strong bipartisan support. I thank Senator Brownback, Senator Feinstein, Senator Boxer, and others for their interest. Mr. President, I am here today to introduce legislation to help end the horrific crime of trafficking in persons, particularly women and children, for the purposes of sexual exploitation and forced labor. This egregious human rights violation--and we must acknowledge trafficking in persons as the gross human rights abuse that it is--is a worldwide problem that must be confronted in domestic legislation as we continue to fight it on the international front. At this very moment the administration is involved in negotiations in Vienna to strengthen international efforts to combat trafficking. We too must do our part. We need to enact a comprehensive trafficking bill into law in this Congress. Senator Brownback and I have worked together closely to develop the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000, and we agree on every provision of the bill except for one. We are here together today to introduce separate trafficking bills but to relay to you the truly bipartisan effort this has been. Senator Brownback, I look forward to continuing this effort as our respective bills move through the committee and to the floor. Despite increasing governmental and international interest, trafficking in persons continues to be one of the darkest aspects of globalization of the world economy, becoming more insidious and more widespread everyday. It is not just a problem that takes place on distant shores, as many of us have been led to believe. A recent CIA analysis of the international trafficking of women to the United States reports that as many as 50,000 women and children each year are brought into the United States and forced to work as prostitutes, forced laborers, and servants. Others credibly estimate that the number is probably much higher than that. In a hearing last week, I heard the almost unbelievable testimony of several women who had been victims of trafficking. But, I say almost unbelievable because I heard the truth directly from the mouths of those who have been hurt the most. One victim trafficked for sex from Mexico to Florida at the age of 14 told, Because I was a virgin, the men decided to initiate me by raping me again and again, to teach me how to have sex * * * Because I was so young, I was always in demand with the customers. It was awful. Although the men were supposed to wear condoms, some didn't so I eventually became pregnant and was forced to have an abortion. I am here today to say that one victim is one too many. We have a serious problem that must be addressed. The Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000 is a comprehensive bill that addresses the three P's of trafficking: it aims to prevent trafficking in persons, provides protection and assistance to those who have been trafficked, and provides for tough prosecution and punishment of those responsible for trafficking. This bill addresses the underlying problems which fuel the trafficking industry by promoting public awareness campaigns, and initiatives to enhance economic opportunity, such as microcredit lending programs and skills training, for those most susceptible to trafficking. It provides for the establishment of programs designed to assist in the safe reintegration of victims into their community, and ensures that such programs address the physical and mental health needs of trafficking victims. In fact, the trauma that results from being trafficked is not unlike that of someone who has been tortured, and victims of trafficking deserve similar assistance. This bill also provides immigration relief and allows victims of trafficking the time necessary to bring charges against those responsible for their condition. In the United States, many trafficking victims are deported for not having the appropriate legal documents when, in fact, it is often the trafficker who has given the victim false documents, or held the victim's identifying documents so that he or she could not move freely. This bill addresses this unintended result of the law. This measure enhances our existing legal structures, criminalizing all forms of trafficking in persons and establishing punishment which is commensurate with the heinous nature of this crime. It provides for sentences of up to life in prison for those criminals involved in trafficking children. Those criminals who are involved in trafficking, from the lowest to the highest levels, should not expect to go unpunished in the United States or abroad, and neither should governments whose governments might be complicit in trafficking. This bill requires an expansion of reporting on trafficking in the annual Country Reports on Human Rights Practices, including a separate list of countries of origin, transit or destination for a significant number of trafficking victims which are not meeting minimum standards for the elimination of trafficking. This bill provides for sanctions against counties which do not meet these minimum standards. It also authorizes the Secretary of State to publish a list of foreign persons involved in trafficking, and authorizes the President to take tough action against any person on that list. A similar bill to our bills is moving through the House. Both that bill, H.R. 3244, and the bills that we are introducing today, are bipartisan efforts that deserve our full consideration. Senator Brownback and I have worked hard to create a bill that is comprehensive and addresses both of our concerns, and both of us are equally committed to the fight against trafficking. We disagree, however, on a small but significant part of the strategy in this fight: the use of mandatory versus discretionary sanctions against countries which do not meet the minimum standards for elimination of trafficking. While Senator Brownback believes a system of mandatory sanctions will better facilitate our goal to eliminate trafficking, after much research into the effect of a mandatory sanctions requirement, I believe a discretionary sanctions approach, allowing for a more targeted use of sanctions, together with a requirement for the delivery to Congress of a separate list of countries involved in trafficking, is the better approach. Trafficking exploits poor women and booms in societies undergoing severe economic distress. To impose economic sanctions in trafficking legislation that cuts off a broad range of bilateral and multilateral assistance programs designed to improve the economy of specific nations is to cause harm to the very people who might be helped by the legislation. For example, I don't believe we can justify cutting off funding designed to foster economic reform so that those most susceptible to trafficking such as women and children, can find work; or cutting off funding for programs that increase professionalism and independence in the judicial system so that traffickers can be held accountable; or even cutting off programs designed to provide training and technical assistance to countries which are generally making an effort to combat trafficking. This is what could happen to certain countries which are known to have a severe trafficking problem, under a mandatory sanctions regime. I don't believe we justify cutting off child survival and disease programs which counter the spread of HIV and AIDS, a significant problem among women trafficked into the sex industry, to countries in which sex trafficking is a large problem such as the Philippines and Bangladesh. These are just a couple of examples of the problems created by a sanctions regime that is too broad. A more targeted, discretionary sanctions approach to sanctions is, I think, clearly the way to go. By requiring a list of countries involved in trafficking who do not meet minimum standards for the elimination of it, we can closely monitor the progress of countries in their fight against trafficking. Trafficking in persons is a complicated issue that almost always involves larger criminal elements. Those countries which are truly committed to ending this gross human rights abuse, and are cooperating in the global battle against it, should not fear the list since they will not be put on it. Those countries which are not doing their share should expect that the President of the United States will use his discretion to impose targeted sanctions, and I for one will do all I can to see that our government imposes appropriate sanctions against those governments whose officials are complicit in this terrible crime. Sanctions can be an important deterrent. However, in my opinion broad mandatory sanctions within the context of trafficking are not useful. A discretionary sanctions regime that allows the President--who is, in fact, better positioned to understand the varying dynamics and extent of the trafficking problem from country to country--to impose specific, targeted, and workable sanctions against trafficking countries is a more sound approach. I hope my colleagues will take a look at both of these trafficking bills and cosponsor one or the other as they move forward. These bills are identical except for the sanctions provision, and both provide the same broad and comprehensive assistance to trafficking victims and to countries working to combat trafficking. Since my wife and I began working on this issue several years ago, I have met with trafficking victims, after-care providers, and human rights advocates from around the world who have reminded me again and again of the horrible nature of this crime. We must intensify our work to eliminate trafficking in persons. We must focus our energy on this bipartisan effort to see the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000 move quickly through the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and get passed into law this year. The many victims of trafficking deserve no less.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Madam President, I rise to talk about a truly extraordinary Minnesotan. Allan Law has been doing extraordinary work in Minnesota for a very long time. For more than 30 years he was a public school teacher--which merits mention in its own right. But his work did not stop at the end of the school day. He also is the founder of Minneapolis Recreation Development, Inc., a non-profit organization, which has been providing constructive recreational activities for our urban youth. This after-school and weekend program was developed more than 30 years ago and has been reaching yearly, on average, 400 of our hardest to reach young people. During that period, Allan has spent untold hours meeting the needs of our inner-city youth. Day-in, day-out Allan Law wakes up and works to make the Twin Cities a better place and the young people living there stronger and healthier. He provides us with a model of what an individual, committed to improving a community, can do. Allan is an inspiration who has been inspiring people for more than a generation. It is my hope and prayer that he will continue his good work for another 30 years. I rise, as schools begin adjourning for the year, to pay tribute to Allan and his incredible work in making Minneapolis a better place--one young person at a time.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I think the Independent Budget is very important. We have been out here working on it. This amendment follows the amendment we introduced. One year is fine, but we need 5 years. Let's vote for this amendment as well.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I hope all Senators will vote for this amendment. A recorded vote is important because there are a lot of gaps in the veterans health care system. For my own part, I would far rather take it out of tax cuts which are disproportionately aimed at higher income people. I hope there is a 100-percent vote for this. The veterans need our support.

Mr. WELLSTONE. We asked for the yeas and nays.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank my colleague from Nevada. Mr. President, I hope Senator Johnson--I have contacted his office-- will be down here because I am really joining Senator Johnson who has taken the lead on this amendment and has been very involved, going back to his work on the Budget Committee. Let me, first of all, give credit where credit is due. Over the last several years, we have been fighting what is called the flatline budget. Last year, the administration presented to the Congress a veterans budget that was woefully inadequate. This year, they have really significantly increased their investment. It is an additional $1.4 billion over where they were. The Budget Committee has stuck with that. That is a huge help. But Senator Johnson and I have had the honor and the opportunity to work with a lot of veterans organizations--the VFW, the Paralyzed Veterans of America, the Disabled American Veterans--who have put together an independent budget. They did this, starting last year, and did a lot of good grassroots organizing around the country. It went way beyond just veterans coming to Washington, DC, and testifying because the message from the Congress to the veterans was: We are not just interested in what you are opposed to or what you say you need more money for. We want to see a careful outline. This independent veterans budget is just such a budget proposal. What Senator Johnson has done--and I am pleased to join him--is called for an additional $500 million above and beyond the $1.4 billion increase from the Senate Budget Committee that would be an investment, especially in veterans' health care. We have a real challenge in veterans' health care. We talked about this in our millennium bill. What we have authorized is essentially decent care for a veterans population that is an aging population. We have many veterans who are 75, 80 years old. What we have said--and we should be looking at the whole population in this country in the same way--is this is a population where there are some huge gaps, some huge needs. We need to get serious about it. How can we pass legislation saying, veterans, we are going to make a commitment to long-term care. We are especially going to make a commitment to making sure you are not forced into nursing homes. We will make a commitment to making sure that there is the support for you to stay at home and live at home in as near a normal circumstance as is possible with dignity. I was in the VA medical center about a month ago. It was very poignant. Quite often the men are World War II veterans. They have had a hip operation, a knee operation. If you spend any time out there in the lounge and talk to their wives, they are scared to death about when their husbands come home because they can't take care of them any longer without help. They don't know what they are going to do. Whether it be respite care, whether it be public health nurses within the VA health care system, we have to get serious about this. The $500 million doesn't do the job, but it goes in the direction of having a veterans budget that is an honest-to-God response to the needs of veterans in this country. In my State of Minnesota, I think the real heroes and heroines are the county veterans' service officers. They are not a part of the VA, but they are on the front lines of veterans' health care. They are on the front lines of meeting the needs of veterans and their families. I have had several meetings with these county veterans' service officers--lots of people come; a lot of veterans come--who are advocates for the veterans. In our State, the medical center in Minneapolis is really a flagship place, but veterans wait for up to 18 months for some of the specialized care they need. That is too long a wait. We have too long a waiting list. We have staff that are overworked, sometimes having to work one shift after another. We have an aging veterans population. We have made the commitment in the millennium bill, but we have not backed it up with the investment of resources. We have too high a percentage of the veterans population that is a part of the homeless population. Too many of them are Vietnam vets, still struggling with posttraumatic stress syndrome. If my colleagues have had any meetings with these vets, they know they are the most poignant meetings. Quite often, veterans will be sitting in a room with you. People will get up and leave and come back and get up and leave. They are struggling; you can see it. Quite often, you have substance abuse that occurs with this as well. We are not providing the treatment. This amendment is a terribly important amendment. I yield the rest of my time to my colleague from South Dakota, Senator Johnson, who took the lead on the Budget Committee. He is the one who introduced the amendment. I am proud to be on the floor with him in partnership pushing for this.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I say to my colleague, I think about 7 minutes.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I rise to address a serious problem with one of the obscure assumptions both of this budget resolution and the President's budget. Both the Administration's submission and this budget resolution contain an assumption that $350 million of anticipated Medical Care Cost Recovery Fund (MCCF) receipts will be remitted to the Treasury from the VA. I strongly oppose this assumption. It flies in the face of current policy--and all logic-- since it would result in a $350 million decrease in VA health care funding at the same time that Congress proposes an increase. The budget resolution is essentially assuming the VA is being given a ``loan'' from Treasury which it must pay back. The VA has historically had difficulty in meeting their projected third party collection goals as it is, using the projected collections as a means to pad the budget on paper. By substantially reducing the incentive for aggressive collections by the VA, the MCCF receipts are even less likely to reach projected levels--meaning fewer funds for veterans health care. This proposal is nothing more than an obscure, cynical maneuver to give extra scoring room on the appropriations bills later in this year at the expense of veterans. However, this provision will require legislation to be put into effect, and I want my colleagues to know that I will strongly oppose any efforts to pass such legislation as that process moves forward this year.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Nevada. I especially thank my colleague, Senator Bingaman from New Mexico, not only for his amendment but for his work in education and for children. Quite often, we will come out here on the floor and talk about how great Senator ``so and so'' is. I am not saying it is not meant because I think quite often it is meant. But from my point of view, at least, I think Senator Bingaman's methodology as a Senator is interesting. He never seems to try to claim credit for what he does. He is extremely thoughtful. He is very substantive. I believe he is one of the best Senators in the Senate. I am proud to support this amendment. Really, what this amendment says, as we look at this overall budget-- after all, our budget speaks to our priorities--is that there is a difference between the Democrats and Republicans. It is a difference that makes a difference. Republicans, in their budget proposal, have provided much more funding for IDEA. I thank the Presiding Officer, the Senator from New Hampshire, for his strong voice on this. Ever since he came here to the Senate, he has been talking about the need to live up to what is an unfunded mandate and to provide for more resources in this area. I think that is extremely important. I also hear from people at our school district levels: Look, if you would do the job of providing the funding here, that would help us in many important ways. Above and beyond that, what we have done is said yes to that. We provide for the same funding, but we go further. We say that we think there is an important choice we need to make as Senators, and there is an important choice and decision the country needs to make: Whether we go down the path of the tax cuts--many of them disproportionately flowing to high-income people, to more affluent citizens--or whether, as we look over the next 5 years, we could, in fact, do better by our children and do better by education with close to an additional $35 billion. I think I heard my colleague, my friend from New Mexico, whom I work with a lot in the mental health area, say: Look, we have done enough. Basically, we believe there is enough in this budget. I do not agree. I am in profound disagreement. I am in a school every 2 weeks, most of the time in Minnesota, although sometimes in other States, as well. I was a college teacher for 20 years. I love to be in schools. I love to teach. I love to meet with students. I will tell you right now, in Minnesota, and all across the country, we have a lot of crumbling schools. I think in Minnesota we have well over a $1 billion challenge ahead of us. I will tell you this: It is very difficult to tell students and young people we value them and then not invest in these schools to the point where the infrastructure is crumbling. What we say to students when we do not even invest in the physical infrastructure is: We do not value you. We have the task of rebuilding crumbling schools. But don't stop there, I say to Senators. We need to do more. I do not think this budget that our Republican colleagues have presented does near enough. I am in profound disagreement. You ask the students--talk to them; in many ways, they are the experts on education--what works and what doesn't? They will all tell you that one of the keys to a good education is good teachers. In the budget proposal that the Democrats have brought to the floor, Senator Bingaman taking the lead, we talk about the need to get more resources to the school district level so that we can hire more good teachers and we can have smaller class size. I would argue today and tomorrow and for the rest of this year and for the next 10 years, that is one of the best things we can do. One of the things we do not include in this budget proposal but Democrats have talked about--I wish we would back it more with investment--is what we should be doing prekindergarten. But let me go on about what we can do and what is in this proposal. In addition, we are talking about afterschool programs. I have not found any issue where there is a greater community consensus--from law enforcement to teachers, to parents, to social workers, to youth workers--that we have to give our children and our young people positive alternatives after school: places to go, places to be. We include that in this proposal. That makes a whole lot of sense. We had a debate--sort of a debate--on the Ed-Flex bill. I will admit, I was in a minority of one on that. I think the final vote was 99-1. But one of the arguments I made--which I believe most Senators agree with, I hope--and which is certainly a part of this proposal, is that we are talking about flexibility at the same time we are providing title I money, which goes to those students who are disadvantaged, those students who need additional support. We are funding it at about a 30-percent level. In my State of Minnesota--I am in inner-city schools all the time--in the city of St. Paul, after you go below the threshold of 65 percent of your students coming from homes which make them qualified for the free or reduced school lunch program, we do not have any funding. Once you have 60 percent of your students low income, you do not qualify. We are out of money. We can do much better. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle say we have done enough. No, we have not done enough. It is not enough to give speeches. It is not enough to have photo opportunities next to children. It is not enough to say we are all for education. It is not enough to say we are for young people because they are our future. It is not enough until we back it up by digging into our pockets and, yes, spending more money and making the investment. I think this amendment that we bring to the floor is a ``divide'' amendment. This is a divide amendment between Republicans and their priorities--more tax cuts; more tax cuts disproportionately going to wealthy, high-income people, versus more investment in children and more investment in education. Frankly, I would be willing to debate any colleague who says we have done enough, that we should not be making this additional investment. Of course, we should be making this additional investment. We are not going to provide the best education for every child on a ``tin cup'' budget. This additional $35 billion can make a difference. Let me also point out, since we have this debate on the floor of the Senate--and we will have much more of this debate when we get to the Elementary and Secondary Education Act--that I am deeply troubled by all of the Senators--I hope not a majority--who want to talk about high stakes standardized tests and want to say we are for rigor and want to say we are for accountability and want to even say that, by gosh, if a third grader, age 8, does not pass this test, then she is going to be held back, but we are unwilling to make the investment and get the resources to the local school district level so that every one of these children have the same opportunity to pass these tests. We hold children responsible for our failure to invest in their achievement and their future. We can't have it this way. We ought to be talking about high standards. We ought to be telling our children we expect the very best of them, but we also need to have the policy integrity, as Senators, to provide the resources to our local communities so we can make sure that, as a Nation and as a Senate, we have met the opportunity-to-learn standard, that every child in the United States of America, regardless of color of skin, rich or poor, low income or high income, rural or urban, or boy or girl, will have the same chance to reach his or her full potential. This $35 billion is not Heaven on Earth. It doesn't make it perfect, but it makes it a better Earth on Earth for our children. I believe we should support it, and I yield the floor.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, reserving right to object--I don't know whether I will--could I ask the Senator to again summarize the second- degree amendment. I couldn't hear him.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I thought the Senator had just summarized it.

Mr. WELLSTONE. That is the second-degree amendment.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from New Jersey. Let me first of all commend Senator Robb of Virginia. I think what he has done out here on the floor of the Senate is very important for our country, and not just for senior citizens. He submitted an amendment that would make it out of order for the Senate to consider a reconciliation bill that spends on-budget surplus on tax cuts unless Congress has already enacted legislation establishing an outpatient Medicare prescription drug benefit. I come here to the floor of the Senate to congratulate Senator Robb and to speak for senior citizens in Minnesota. If we are about legislation that is important to people's lives, if we want to be here to represent the people in our States, there is no more important amendment for us to pass. This isn't where the rubber meets the road, but it is all about the general direction for the Senate, and the direction Senator Robb's amendment calls is to make sure we make a commitment to funding prescription drug coverage for senior citizens in this country. In the State of Minnesota, on the basis of hearings I have attended, on the basis of conversations and meetings--some of them incredibly heartfelt and incredibly painful--with elderly citizens in my State, there is no more important thing we can do than to pass this amendment and to once and for all cover prescription drug benefits for senior citizens. First of all, in the State of Minnesota, because of a very unfair and, I argue, even discriminatory Medicare reimbursement to our managed-care plans and to our seniors, we have in our State only one- third of senior citizens receiving any kind of prescription drug coverage at all. Two-thirds of the senior citizens in Minnesota don't have any coverage whatsoever. I think in the country it is about one-third. But in our State it is an acute problem; it is a problem of crisis proportion. Second of all, as a result of that, it is not uncommon to meet seniors who, even when the doctor gives them a prescription, can't fill the prescription because they don't have the money, or they cut the pills into thirds or into halves, all of which is dangerous. I have met all of those senior citizens. I have been in these conversations with senior citizens about this. It is not uncommon to meet people who spend $300 or $400 a month to meet their prescription drug costs and at the same time their total monthly income is $1,000--all the while, in the pharmaceutical industry, the costs have gone up 17 percent a year over the past couple of years, and they are projected to go up again. The pharmaceutical industry rakes in record--I argue exorbitant, I argue obscene--profits. But for today, what is so important about the Robb amendment is that if we want to do something to really make a difference in the lives of people we represent, we must expand Medicare and provide this coverage. My colleagues on the Republican side want to go forward with tax cuts, many of which go to higher income people least in need. They seem to believe it is not an appropriate role for Government or the Senate to provide prescription drug coverage as a part of what Medicare is all about. I think the vast majority of people in the country believe that when it comes to certain pressing issues of their lives, there is a positive role Government can play. This is a perfect example to make sure people do not go without the very prescription drugs they need, which is so essential to their health. That is what is so important about this amendment. When my Republican colleagues say they want to limit this to low- income senior citizens, I just want to say what has made Medicare and Social Security work is that it is a universal coverage program. It commands broad support. This is about building on Medicare. This isn't going back to means-tested programs which quite often become poor programs. Just because a senior citizen in Minnesota or Virginia or Massachusetts has an income of $17,000 a year or $18,000 a year, it does not mean he or she or both of them are not in need of some help so they can purchase the prescription drugs that are so important to their health. This is a very important amendment. I am tired of the Minnesotans having to go to Canada to purchase prescription drugs they can afford. I am tired of the Minnesota Senior Federation, which is a courageous, gutsy grassroots organization, having to raise Cain over and over and over again about the fact that so many senior citizens are not able to afford the prescription drugs they need for their health. ``All politics,'' Tip O'Neill said, ``is local.'' I argue all politics is also personal. Having been the child of parents, both of whom have passed away with Parkinson's disease, I know what drugs such as L-Dopa and Sinemet cost. There is no more important thing we can do if we want to get real, if we want to respond to what our constituents need, than to pass this Robb amendment. I thank the Senator from Virginia for his leadership. I yield the floor.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I rise today to draw attention to the continuing war in Chechnya and to remind the international community that our lack of vigorous and sustained action to respond to the conflict there could be too easily interpreted by the Russian Government as indifference to it. We must act to again remind the newly elected President of the Russian Federation, Vladimir Putin, that he is responsible for the conduct of Russian troops in and around Chechnya and has an obligation to ensure compliance with international humanitarian law and human rights norms; and we must act to urge the Government of the Russian Federation and the leadership of the Chechen Government to immediately cease military operations in Chechnya and to seek a negotiated just settlement to the conflict there. Today I am offering a Resolution which urges the Administration to sponsor a Resolution condemning the Russian Federation's conduct in Chechnya at the annual United Nations Human Rights Commission meeting that is currently underway in Geneva, Switzerland, to support the appointment of a U.N. Special Rapporteur for Chechnya, and to place the war in Chechnya at the top of the agenda of all high-level diplomatic meetings involving the United States and the Russian Federation. The United States must publicly and actively affirm respect for human rights, democratic rule of law and international accountability as a foundation of United States policy and not simply pay them lip service. Sunday night we watched as acting President Vladimir Putin was elected President of the Russian Federation. As the President of a fully sovereign state I do not question President Putin's authority to combat what it perceives as terrorism on its own soil and to ensure the integrity of its borders, nor do I dismiss credible reports of grave violations of human rights on both sides of this war. I do, however, condemn the continuing indiscriminate use of force by the Russian military in Chechnya and the blatant disregard it continues to show for international humanitarian law there. Last month the Senate Foreign Relations Committee heard evidence and testimony reporting that Russian forces in Chechnya have caused the deaths of countless thousands of innocent civilians and the displacement of well over 250,000 innocents; forcibly relocated refugee populations; and committed widespread atrocities including summary executions, arbitrary detentions, torture, and rape. While they claim to have begun to open up access to the region, the Russian government continues to effectively deny international organizations full and unimpeded access into Chechnya to assess and report on the situation there, to investigate alleged atrocities and war crimes, and to provide humanitarian relief. I am not alone in my concern about the situation in Chechnya. Last November both the House and Senate passed resolutions expressing grave concern regarding the armed conflict in the North Caucasus region of the Russian Federation and condemning the violence in Chechnya. On February 24 of this year, the Senate unanimously agreed to Senate Resolution 262, calling for a peaceful resolution to the conflict in Chechnya, and Senate Resolution 261, regarding the detention of the journalist Andrei Babitsky. Finally, just a few weeks ago on March 9, Senate Resolution 269, regarding relations with the Russian Federation given its conduct in Chechnya, was referred to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. We have all read editorials on Chechnya in the news media written by our own colleagues, witnessed a joint conference on Chechnya by the Commonwealth of Independent States Inter-parliamentary Assembly and the European Parliament, heard claims by a leading Russian human rights activist who is also a member of the Russian Parliament offering fierce criticism of the Russian government's efforts in Chechnya, and listened as just this past week at the annual meeting of the U.N. Human Rights Commission meeting in Geneva, Secretary Albright objected to the indiscriminate use of force against civilians in Chechnya and proclaimed that allegations of Russian human rights violations are serious and must be addressed urgently. In a phone call to congratulate President Putin on his victory in the Presidential election, President Clinton expressed his hope that Mr. Putin would carry out impartial and transparent investigations of reported human rights violations in Chechnya and provide prompt and full access for international organizations and the press. But, Mr. President, even after all this commentary, and numerous meetings designed to press the Russians to change course, the situation has changed hardly at all. I fully support Secretary Albright's decision to address the allegations of gross human rights abuses by Russian soldiers in Chechnya in her address to the U.N. Commission on Human Rights, and the President's raising this issue again in his phone call to President Putin, but the grave situation in Chechnya demands that we do more. The annual meeting of the U.N. Commission on Human Rights provides a major forum for addressing human rights concerns and for expressing international commentary on the human rights performance of all nations. The Government of the Russian Federation must be held accountable for its conduct in Chechnya and should be forced to defend itself against allegations of grave human rights violations there, in the full light of public scrutiny. The administration should bring a resolution expressing the Commission's serious concern about reports of gross human rights abuses and other violations of humanitarian law in Chechnya, including provisions urging the establishment of a Commission of Inquiry to investigate violations of the Geneva Convention and other international humanitarian law. It must also support the appointment of a United Nations Special Rapporteur for Chechnya to assess and report on the situation there, and place the war in Chechnya at the top of the agenda of all high-level diplomatic meetings involving the United States and the Russian Federation. Mr. President, it is high time the United States expressed its commitment to human rights, democratic rule of law, and international accountability through concrete action. We must send a message to the Russian Federation, as well as the international community, that respect for these important principles will be a condition for continued cooperation with the United States. We must demand concrete action by the Government of the Russian Federation to end human rights violations by Russian soldiers in Chechnya, to investigate, where appropriate, those accused of violations, and to ease the suffering of civilians there. We must not be diverted by verbal commitments by the Russian leadership that never come to fruition. We need to exercise our leadership now. The international community and the people of Chechnya deserve no less.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I join with my colleagues on the HELP committee to cosponsor the Ryan White Care Act Amendments of 2000. I do this with pride in what has been accomplished since I last cosponsored the reauthorization of the Ryan White Care Act in 1996. This legislation since 1991 has enabled the development of community driven systems of care for low-income, uninsured, and underinsured individuals and families affected by HIV disease. Last year alone, the Ryan White CARE Act served an estimated half million people living with HIV and AIDS and affected the lives of millions more. Nearly 6 in 10 of these people were poor. Last year, this legislation enabled approximately 100,000 people living with HIV and AIDS to receive drug therapy. This is particularly important because half of the people served by the Act have incomes less than $10,000 a year--and the new drug treatments cost more than $12,000 annually. According to the National Center for Health Statistics, between 1995 and 1997, there has been a 30 percent decline in HIV related hospitalizations, representing a savings of more than $1 billion. Since 1991, according to Sandra Thurman, Director of the Office of National AIDS Policy, the CARE Act has helped to reduce AIDS mortality by 70 percent; to reduce mother-child transmission of HIV by 75 percent; and to enhance both the length and quality of life for people living with HIV/AIDS. The epidemic is far from over. Each year there are 40,000 new HIV infections in the U.S., and the death rate is no longer dropping so quickly. Although people with HIV disease are living much longer, the highly touted multi-drug therapies are beginning to fall short of their prayed for effectiveness, and they do not work for everyone. In addition, the nature of the epidemic is changing. HIV/AIDS is devastating communities of color. AIDS is the leading cause of death for African-Americans aged 25 to 44, and the second leading cause of death among Latino Americans of the same age group. HIV/AIDS also disproportionately affects younger Americans. Half of the 40,000 new infections each year occur in individuals under age 25. AIDS is killing the youngest, potentially most productive members of our society. Without a renewed commitment to research, prevention, and culturally sensitive treatment, the rates of infection and death will continue to ravage communities of color. It is a testament to the success of this legislation that there is such unanimity among the committee members and all of the diverse group of stakeholders that the Ryan White Care Act needs to be reauthorized. The amendments included in this legislation are designed to increase the accountability of the overall program; to meet the challenges of the changing nature of the epidemic; to improve the quality of care; and to reach those affected by this plague who have not been reached before. We often say ``Leave no child behind'' and everyone agrees. We must also say, ``let's leave no one afflicted by this dread disease untreated''. Provisions for quality management around clinical practice will bring best practices to patients. Holding grantees accountable for quality management and relevance of programs means the money appropriated will be well spent. This is good medicine and responsible lawmaking. Allowing for flexibility in how the AIDS Drug Assistance Program (ADAP) funds are spent will provide more low-income individuals with life-prolonging medications. Focusing on early intervention services to support early diagnosis will get patients into treatment faster and hopefully also slow the spread of the disease. Requiring grantees to develop and maintain linkages with key points of entry to the medical system, such as mental health and substance abuse treatment centers, will dramatically improve treatment, slow the spread of the disease, and reach previously unserved people. This is good prevention. In 1990, the HIV/AIDS epidemic was primarily limited to large cities; hence the majority of funds were granted to cities. Over the last decade, unfortunately, the epidemic has spread to more rural areas and to different populations. This bill requires that funds be spent in accordance with local demographics. Several provisions in this bill will allow more funds to go to less populated areas and to provide special grants for infants, youth and women. This is good allocation of resources based on needs. This bill also contains fiscally responsible caps on administrative costs, and requires all grantees to coordinate with Medicaid and the State Children's Health Insurance Program. This makes good fiscal sense. Mr. President, the Ryan White CARE Act has saved lives and serves hundreds of thousands of needy people yearly. The Ryan White CARE Act has a proven record of success; let's build on that success. This federal legislation needs to be reauthorized now, as proposed, to meet the continuing needs and new challenges presented by the changing nature of the HIV/AIDS epidemic. That is why I urge all Senators to join in cosponsoring and passing the Ryan White CARE Act Amendments of 2000, and I urge the members of the Appropriations Committee to provide the funds to fully implement it.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I join with my colleagues on the HELP committee to cosponsor the Ryan White Care Act Amendments of 2000. I do this with pride in what has been accomplished since I last cosponsored the reauthorization of the Ryan White Care Act in 1996. This legislation since 1991 has enabled the development of community driven systems of care for low-income, uninsured, and underinsured individuals and families affected by HIV disease. Last year alone, the Ryan White CARE Act served an estimated half million people living with HIV and AIDS and affected the lives of millions more. Nearly 6 in 10 of these people were poor. Last year, this legislation enabled approximately 100,000 people living with HIV and AIDS to receive drug therapy. This is particularly important because half of the people served by the Act have incomes less than $10,000 a year--and the new drug treatments cost more than $12,000 annually. According to the National Center for Health Statistics, between 1995 and 1997, there has been a 30 percent decline in HIV related hospitalizations, representing a savings of more than $1 billion. Since 1991, according to Sandra Thurman, Director of the Office of National AIDS Policy, the CARE Act has helped to reduce AIDS mortality by 70 percent; to reduce mother-child transmission of HIV by 75 percent; and to enhance both the length and quality of life for people living with HIV/AIDS. The epidemic is far from over. Each year there are 40,000 new HIV infections in the U.S., and the death rate is no longer dropping so quickly. Although people with HIV disease are living much longer, the highly touted multi-drug therapies are beginning to fall short of their prayed for effectiveness, and they do not work for everyone. In addition, the nature of the epidemic is changing. HIV/AIDS is devastating communities of color. AIDS is the leading cause of death for African-Americans aged 25 to 44, and the second leading cause of death among Latino Americans of the same age group. HIV/AIDS also disproportionately affects younger Americans. Half of the 40,000 new infections each year occur in individuals under age 25. AIDS is killing the youngest, potentially most productive members of our society. Without a renewed commitment to research, prevention, and culturally sensitive treatment, the rates of infection and death will continue to ravage communities of color. It is a testament to the success of this legislation that there is such unanimity among the committee members and all of the diverse group of stakeholders that the Ryan White Care Act needs to be reauthorized. The amendments included in this legislation are designed to increase the accountability of the overall program; to meet the challenges of the changing nature of the epidemic; to improve the quality of care; and to reach those affected by this plague who have not been reached before. We often say ``Leave no child behind'' and everyone agrees. We must also say, ``let's leave no one afflicted by this dread disease untreated''. Provisions for quality management around clinical practice will bring best practices to patients. Holding grantees accountable for quality management and relevance of programs means the money appropriated will be well spent. This is good medicine and responsible lawmaking. Allowing for flexibility in how the AIDS Drug Assistance Program (ADAP) funds are spent will provide more low-income individuals with life-prolonging medications. Focusing on early intervention services to support early diagnosis will get patients into treatment faster and hopefully also slow the spread of the disease. Requiring grantees to develop and maintain linkages with key points of entry to the medical system, such as mental health and substance abuse treatment centers, will dramatically improve treatment, slow the spread of the disease, and reach previously unserved people. This is good prevention. In 1990, the HIV/AIDS epidemic was primarily limited to large cities; hence the majority of funds were granted to cities. Over the last decade, unfortunately, the epidemic has spread to more rural areas and to different populations. This bill requires that funds be spent in accordance with local demographics. Several provisions in this bill will allow more funds to go to less populated areas and to provide special grants for infants, youth and women. This is good allocation of resources based on needs. This bill also contains fiscally responsible caps on administrative costs, and requires all grantees to coordinate with Medicaid and the State Children's Health Insurance Program. This makes good fiscal sense. Mr. President, the Ryan White CARE Act has saved lives and serves hundreds of thousands of needy people yearly. The Ryan White CARE Act has a proven record of success; let's build on that success. This federal legislation needs to be reauthorized now, as proposed, to meet the continuing needs and new challenges presented by the changing nature of the HIV/AIDS epidemic. That is why I urge all Senators to join in cosponsoring and passing the Ryan White CARE Act Amendments of 2000, and I urge the members of the Appropriations Committee to provide the funds to fully implement it.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I rise today to explain my vote against the Hollings amendment to S.J.Res. 14 which would have amended the Constitution to authorize regulation of contributions to, and spending by, Federal and State candidates. I am a strong proponent of campaign finance reform. I would even go so far as to say that I view the fight to bar private, interested money from dominating our elections as the core battle that needs to be won if Congress is going to turn its attention to enacting an agenda that put working families before wealthy, entrenched special interests. The campaign finance reform debate may be to the nineties what civil rights was to the fifties and sixties. In fact, let me go a step further and say the campaign finance reform may be the new civil rights watershed. I do not believe that money equals speech, as some of my colleagues have argued during the debate on the Hollings amendment and in previous debates. The vote is undermined by the dollar. The vote may be equally distributed, but dollars are not. As long as elections are privately financed, those who can afford to give more will always have a leg up-- in supporting candidates, in running for office themselves, and in gaining access and influence with those who get elected. We all know this is the way it works. And the American people know it, too. I laud my colleague's intentions in offering this amendment. No one has pushed harder on campaign finance reform than the junior Senator from South Carolina. But while I have supported the Hollings amendment in the past, I voted against it today. There is now significant momentum at both the federal and state levels to enact campaign finance reform--including public financing of elections, which I believe is critical--in a manner that will pass constitutional muster. These efforts, with hard work and determination, have the best chance of resulting in meaningful, lasting improvements in our election system, and therefore in our democracy. Amending the Constitution is a long and arduous process. It is rarely successful. I simply do not believe that it is now the best mechanism for achieving reform.