Paul Wellstone

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, there was a press conference today held by the National Campaign for Jobs and Income. There were some very dramatic findings reported. This is directly relevant to the debate we were having with the majority leader. They reported today in a prosperous country, we still have about 35 million poor Americans and 13 million of those Americans are children. They reported that while the administration and other Senators and Representatives boast about having cut the welfare rolls in half, we actually have just made a small, hardly any, dent in reducing poverty. Remember, the goal of the welfare bill was to move people from welfare to economic self-sufficiency. They report that the poorest children in America are getting poorer. That is worth repeating: The poorest children in America are getting poorer. They report there is a whole group of people, mothers and children, remaining in poverty. Many are families under tremendous stress and strain. Perhaps a mother has struggled with substance abuse; a mother who is a single parent has a severely disabled child; a mother has been battered, beaten up over and over again. About every 13 seconds in America, a woman is battered in her home. There is precious little evidence these families will be able to move to work. Pretty soon, depending on the State, they will be pushed off a cliff. We have no safety net left as a result of the welfare bill. They report there is not one State in the country where the average earnings is even close to the poverty level income. The vast majority of the jobs are barely above minimum-wage jobs, and after 1 year the families lose their health care coverage and are not able to get good child care for their children, sometimes not any child care. Given those findings, I think it should give Members pause that we are actually seeing an increase in the poverty of the poorest children in America; it should give Members pause. It is amazing that State governments with the TANF money have about $7 billion they have not spent--$7 billion. There are all the needs for affordable child care, for training, especially for additional support services for families that are under unbelievable strain, are mainly women and children in need of affordable housing, sometimes transportation. All of this compelling need and these families are under tremendous pressure trying to survive under very difficult conditions, and the money we have allocated to these States, $7 billion, is not being spent. Albeit, some of it can be put in a rainy day fund and maybe should be because who knows if the business cycle will stay up forever. Six States--Connecticut, Kansas, Minnesota, New York, Texas, and Wisconsin--transferred $800 million from the TANF surpluses to funding programs other than those that serve poor families. Quite often it ends up as general tax rebates, not to the poor. This year, Minnesota is doing much better with the TANF money. Last year, I am not proud of what the Minnesota Government did. My point is simple: No. 1, the amount of unspent TANF money in the States has reached $7 billion, an enormous amount of money. No. 2, this money has been unspent despite the persistent level of poverty that exists in our country, especially among women and children. And for children, the poorest of poor children, their poverty has increased and some of the States are not spending the money to help them. No. 3, these low-income families are not receiving the services and the support they need to move out of poverty, which is what this bill was supposed to be all about. No. 4, although some States are developing innovative programs, other States are diverting TANF money to pay for tax cuts or other programs that are not even targeted to the poor. No. 5, in a time of unprecedented economic growth, there are all sorts of ways in which the States could be using this money to invest in children, to make sure that families can move from welfare to economic self-sufficiency, and they are not. Conclusion: Don't we write the checks? Doesn't this money come from the Congress and the Federal Government? I think we have the responsibility to ensure that the States are spending the TANF money in ways that meet the goals of the program, which is to move families out of welfare into jobs so they can support themselves. We should insist that the TANF money is spent to help struggling families--not put into a surplus, or not to be given back as tax rebates to citizens across the board. I think it is an abuse of the program. In this TANF reauthorization, that will be my work as a Senator. I hope other Senators will join. I oppose the bill. I am glad I oppose the bill. Those in favor of the bill should be the first to want to make sure the money is spent the way it is supposed to be spent. We should insist on accountability. Second, I will come back with an amendment. That is what the debate with the majority leader is about. I am a Senator most vocal about having the right to bring amendments to this bill. I want an amendment that says we should have a policy evaluation of what is happening to the poor children. Don't tell me that is not relevant to their education, but it wouldn't be relevant to this piece of legislation as defined by the definition of ``relevant.'' It would be an amendment, and I do not have a right to offer that amendment--so says the majority leader. But this is compelling. The poverty of children is compelling. The poverty of the poorest of children is compelling. As a Senator who spent most of his adult life working in many of these communities, I want to have some amendments that deal with the poverty of children and I want to have the right to introduce those amendments to this bill. As a Senator from Minnesota, I don't want to continue to be shut out, by the majority, of my right to come out here and fight for people. Basically, that has been the strategy for almost this whole last year. I hope Democrats will, basically, not let themselves be rolled. I hope Democrats will say: As Democrats, as the minority party, we are going to insist on the same rights as the minority party had when we were the majority. It is a very important principle. But it is not just insider politics. It is all about whether or not, when you go home to your State and meet with people, and you know their problems, you want to do better for people--it is whether or not you can be a legislator and come out here with amendments and debate and fight for people for whom you want to fight. So if there is no agreement, I certainly hope the Democrats will support one another on what I think is a very important question. Back to the substantive issue, I hope my colleagues will take a look at what is being done to this welfare bill with this TANF money. We have some troubling data from which we cannot turn our gaze. Most of these families who are now working, 670,000 people, are no longer covered by medical assistance since this bill was passed because after 1 year they are off. Hardly any of these mothers have living-wage jobs. We just had a report a few weeks ago that the child care situation for their children ranges from dangerous to barely adequate. Just because they are poor children does not mean they are not entitled to good child care. We have had this dramatic decline in food stamp participation. We have no idea why. It is certainly not because there has been much of a decrease in poverty. We see the rise of hunger and the use of food shelves in our country. But the States have $7 billion they are sitting on. They came here and said: Trust us, just give us the money; we will do the best with it. But quite often low-income families, poor families, whether they are people of color or white people, do not have much clout. It is up to us to say: We are a national community. There are certain values we hold dear. There are certain things as a national community we hold dear. One of them is, by gosh, there are going to be some standards everyone is going to have to meet because whether a child eats or not, whether or not there is decent housing, whether or not a family is able to make ends meet, whether or not children are able to look forward to a good life, should not depend on the State in which they live. We make a commitment as a national community, especially to the most vulnerable citizens in our country, who are children, who are poor children. I yield the floor.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I come to the floor to raise a question which I can't believe I have to keep raising over and over again. Many of us attended the services for Officer Chestnut and Agent Gibson. They were part of the Capitol Hill police force. They were here every day not only protecting Senators and Representatives but the public. I started speaking about this before. We had the 1-week break. I want to come back to this again. This is the one issue on which I want to focus. We made a commitment to do everything we could possibly do to make sure the officers were as safe as possible and would never have to go through this kind of hell again, for families and for loved ones, and that the public would be safe. Part of that commitment was the idea that surely at the different stations, especially those with the most public, we would have at least two officers. This morning, again--I think it is the Second Street or C Street entrance, the barricaded part of the Hart Building--at about 10 o'clock in the morning when I came in there was one police officer with all sorts of people. There must have been about 20 people streaming in. That one officer is in peril, and the public is in peril. I cannot believe we have not lived up to our commitment. I say to colleagues that it is pretty simple. I think the Senate Sergeant at Arms said this: A, we need to pass a supplemental appropriations bill so that you can use overtime in the short run to do the staffing so we have two officers at each one of these stations, or each one of these posts; and, B--I applauded the Senate Sergeant at Arms--we need to hire about 100 more officers so that on a permanent basis we can staff and have two officers at each one of these posts. I am telling you, colleagues, what we have done is absolutely unconscionable, or what we have not done. How in the world can whoever makes these appropriations decisions--given all we have been through, given all of our concern and all of the commitment we have made, given the service we attended for the two officers who were slain--how can we not put the resources into this so our officers are safe, and, for that matter, so we are safe and the public is safe? I for the life of me don't get it. I honest to goodness don't get it. I think that every day I am going to come out and mention this. I can't believe this.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Having talked to the Senate Sergeant at Arms, I think that Senators who care about this issue--and I think all do--need to make sure our voices are heard. We support the Capitol Police. On the House side, there seems to be some slowness on a decision about whether or not we will pass through the supplemental appropriations bill and whether or not we will do the job here. I say to colleagues one more time, I think this is a scandal. I think it is an absolute scandal. We have two officers that have lost their lives. I believe we have made a commitment to the police officers and to their families. I think we have to do much better. It won't happen right away, but at least the decisions need to be made so we can do the staffing to make sure we have two officers at each post.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. I ask the Senator from California, did she not intend to speak?

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, first of all, very briefly, how much time do the Democrats have left?

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, let me try to do this in 10 minutes. I might ask unanimous consent for a couple of more minutes but not much more. I thank my colleagues for their discussion about prescription drug costs. In the State of Minnesota, actually only one-third of senior citizens have any prescription drug coverage at all. Let me also point out that in the State of Minnesota, we have many seniors who cut their pills in half because they think they will save money and still will be able to help themselves and actually, doctors say, sometimes that can be more dangerous than not even taking the drug at all. The investment in prescription drug coverage cannot be done on the cheap. I am in complete agreement with my colleagues about the tradeoff between tax cuts, the vast majority of which benefit people at the top, and not having the money for this investment. But to be fair in a critique here, I think all of us, Democrats and Republicans, have to understand even if we provide a benefit but we are unwilling to spend too much money for fear of being called, I suppose, big spending liberals or whatever, if you set a cap and you say only $1,000 will be covered and no more than that, then I can tell you many of our senior citizens, and others who are the frailest and most sick, will bump up against that cap, and it will still not cover their catastrophic expenses. We have to be very careful people can afford it on the front side as well. So whether it be too high deductibles or caps that are set too low, we have to be very careful if we say we are going to have this coverage for people and security for people, that it will be there.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I have in hand an article, titled ``Rights Group Reports Massacre in Chechnya.'' The first two paragraphs read: Moscow, Feb. 22--Russian soldiers went on a deadly rampage earlier this month in a neighborhood of the Chechen capital of Grozny, killing at least 60 civilians in the worst case yet disclosed of Russian military atrocities, an international human rights group charged today. During the attack, which began the morning of Feb. 5 in the Aldi neighborhood, soldiers, ``systematically'' robbed and shot civilians, raped women and looted and burned homes, according to a draft report prepared by Human Rights Watch and based on interviews with witnesses and relatives of those killed. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent this article be printed in the Record.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I hope to have the opportunity to introduce a freestanding resolution on the floor of the Senate. I hope this resolution will receive unanimous support. It expresses the sense of the Senate that the Russian Federation should devote every effort to achieving a peaceful resolution of the conflict in Chechnya, allowing to Chechnya an international monitoring mission to monitor and report on the situation there and allow international humanitarian agencies to make sure there is immediate and full and unimpeded access to Chechen civilians. This is a question on which the Senate should not be silent. It does make a difference if we speak up. Two weeks ago, I met with members of the Chechen Government. They discussed with me the horrific conditions currently facing their homeland. I do not think any of us should be silent while this is happening. We in the Senate should express our distress over the escalating humanitarian situation in Chechnya, and we should urge the administration to enlarge its public demands on Russia to confront it. It is clear that the Russian Government must move immediately to allow into Chechnya an international monitoring force to monitor and report on the situation there. We need that. The world needs that. The people in Chechnya need that. It must also immediately move to assist those persons who have been displaced from Chechnya as a result of this conflict, and the Russian Government must allow representatives of the international community access to those persons in order to provide humanitarian relief. Russian authorities agree to permit the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe to engage in monitoring in Chechnya, yet it has not permitted OSCE's six monitors currently in Moscow to visit the region. The administration must demand that Russia permit the monitoring mission to go forward and take steps to expand it substantially. The administration must urge Russia to grant human rights monitors access to the region, including those from our own diplomatic missions in the area. The administration must engage Russian authorities at the highest levels to secure cooperation in addressing the humanitarian emergency in Chechnya and in its neighboring province. It must demand Russia assist those persons who have been displaced from Chechnya as a result of this conflict and grant humanitarian organizations access to Chechen civilians to provide some relief. The civilian population in Chechnya has been victimized to an extraordinary degree, and it is in desperate need of humanitarian aid. The Senate should not be silent on this question. Finally, the administration must urge the Russian Government to achieve a peaceful resolution and durable settlement in a manner consistent with Russia's obligation to the international community. We must strongly support the OSCE mediation process. The Russian Government acknowledged the OSCE's competence in serving as a mediator and achieving a political settlement to the conflict in Chechnya during the war of 1994 to 1996. However, to date, the Russians have rebuffed repeated efforts by the OSCE to mediate the current conflict. The administration must increase its efforts to persuade Russia to implement an immediate cease-fire and accept OSCE-mediated negotiations. As this conflict drags on and the number and intensity of human rights abuses by Russian forces in Chechnya increase, the administration must support the creation of a United Nations commission of inquiry to investigate serious violations of international humanitarian law by Russian forces. We must confront the suffering of the Chechen people. As many of my colleagues know, the recent Russian assault on the Chechen capital of Grozny was one more campaign in a continuing series of Russian military offensives in Chechnya. In September, I expressed my concerns to Yeltsin and Putin about the humanitarian tragedy that was, for the second time, unfolding in Chechnya. It is hard to imagine that after the use of force in Chechnya from 1994 to 1996, which left over 80,000 civilians dead, the Russian leadership could again see the use of force as enhancing the prospects for a durable settlement to this conflict. But the Russian leadership has again chosen use of force, and the current tragedy before us has now reached unimaginable heights, as evidenced by the piece today in the Washington Post. Russian forces have used indiscriminate and disproportionate force in their bombings of civilian targets. This has resulted in the deaths of thousands of innocent civilian and displaced countless other. Russian authorities maintain a virtual ban on access to Chechen civilians by media and international humanitarian agencies resulting in our having to rely on the personal testimony of refugees fleeing the fighting to determine the nature and extent of the crisis and best means to provide humanitarian relief. These testimonies are horrific: incidents of widespread looting, summary executions, detentions, denial of civilians safe passage from the fighting, torture, and rape. Many civilians report being detained at the Chechen border as they tried to flee the fighting. They tell of brothers and fathers who had simply been denied safe passage out. It is fundamentally unacceptable to deny any civilian the right to flee the fighting--to trap them in this dangerous war. And where do these trapped civilians go? Into detention camps. No one needs to be reminded of the systematic torture that took place in detention camps set up to detain Chechens in the 1994-96 Chechen war. That event stains the memory of the Chechen people and it is happening again. One twenty-one-year-old tells of the horror in the camps: About fifteen or twenty soldiers were standing in two lines with rubber sticks. . . . When I was running through the corridor, each soldier beat me with the sticks. They made us undress and started checking our clothes. They took away the clothes they liked. . . . For a week, I had to sit in the jail almost naked. In addition to this torture, young men report that in order to be released from the camps their family members must pay outrageous bribes to camp officers and upon release, must sign papers saying they suffered no harm in captivity. Then there are the numerous reports of rape. In one Chechen town a six-month pregnant 23-year-old woman was raped and murdered. Her mother-in-law was executed in this same incident. And Mr. President, many incidences of rape and sexual abuse go unreported. For many women in towns and villages all over Chechnya the shame is simply too great-- they won't come forward to report these horrible crimes. Chechnya's culture and national traditions make it difficult to document case of rape and sexual abuse--unmarried women who are raped are unlikely to be able to get married, and married women who are raped are likely to be divorced by their husbands. The effects of these rapes on Chechen society will be profound and long lasting. I remind the Russian leadership that rape is war crime. Two weeks ago I sent a letter to acting President Putin expressing my deep concern over the deteriorating situation in Chechnya and the Russian government's response to the humanitarian tragedy there. I urge the Russian government to move quickly to resolve this situation in a manner consistent with Russia's obligations to the international community and urge the Russian leadership to begin now to investigate and prosecute those responsible for human rights abuses in Chechnya--it promised to do this after the last Chechen war but failed to do so. I urge my colleagues to communicate their own concerns to the Administration and the Russian government in whatever manner you think best. We cannot remain silent. We must fully condemn the use of indiscriminate force against the civilians in Chechnya and denial of humanitarian relief to Chechen civilians. We must remind the Russian leadership that the world is watching. This congress and this administration must express to the Russian government that it should devote every effort to achieve a peaceful resolution of the conflict in Chechnya, allow into Chechnya an international monitoring force to monitor and report on the situations there. That is what this resolution I have submitted to the Senate, on which I hope we will have a vote, calls for. We must call for allowing international humanitarian agencies immediate, full, and unimpeded access to Chechen civilians in order to provide humanitarian relief. This resolution, on which I hope we will have an up-or-down vote or it will be unanimously accepted by the Senate, calls for several things. It calls for the Russian Federation to devote every effort to a peaceful resolution, to allow into Chechnya an international monitoring mission to monitor and report on the situation, and to allow international humanitarian agencies immediate and full access to Chechen civilians. The people of Chechnya deserve no less. I have no illusions. I do not think adopting a resolution automatically turns the situation around, but I do believe the Senate should not be silent, that we must support this resolution, and we must send this message. We must stand up for human rights. I yield the floor.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, the Senator from Georgia wants to speak. I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to follow the Senator from Georgia.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I appreciate the Senator's remarks. I definitely want to respond. Senator Schumer is on a tight timeline. He asked whether he could speak for 5 minutes. Then I would follow him. I ask unanimous consent that Senator Schumer be allowed to speak for 5 minutes and I be allowed to follow Senator Schumer.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I appreciate the remarks of Senator Schumer and what Senator Coverdell had to say. Let me move away from procedure and whether the bill should now be debated and go to substance. First of all, the idea that up to $2,000 in savings can be put into education, from my point of view from some of the most hard-pressed people in Minnesota--Minnesota is divided, metro and then inner city, where a lot of people are struggling economically. Unfortunately, in Minnesota and I think around the country, we are moving to two Americas. In rural America, people are not going to have the $2,000 savings. They will not even get close. They do not have it to put in savings. Let me be clear in terms of which families will be able to benefit and which will not. I ask the Senator from Georgia, is it a deduction people make?

Mr. WELLSTONE. Just from a tax progressivity point of view, those with the highest liability with less income shown pay less. I don't see the large part of this benefit going to the most hard-pressed families. That is my first point. That is substance, not parliamentary, when the bill is out on the floor.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I am happy to yield to the Senator.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I appreciate what the Senator said, and I will be pleased to yield for other questions as well. First, I point out to the Senator on whether or not this is, roughly speaking, the same benefit as in the President's proposal, that does not move me as a Senator as much. Having done a lot of community work with low- and moderate-income people, I know for a fact that most of the people will not have anywhere close to $2,000 to put into savings. It is a reality. It is not even thinkable for most of them. Second, yes, others in the community might be able to contribute and help them out, but that begs the question. The families who will be able to best take advantage of this are families who are on the higher income end of the scale. That is a first point, regardless of a comparison to the President's proposal. In any case, I made this to be scrupulously nonpartisan or bipartisan, or whatever the right label is. For the President's HOPE scholarship program, I said if this is not a refundable tax credit, most of the families with incomes under $28,000 don't have the tax liability and it will not help. I am being consistent in my argument. On the whole question of low-income communities, the very people I am talking about are the ones who are clamoring the most for this. Let me get to that point in a second. First, another criticism. I want to be straight up in my disagreement with my colleague from Georgia. I think there is a real question if it is through the Tax Code. We keep having a debate. It is tax expenditure. We are spending money one way or the other. If we do it through the Tax Code, we are basically providing dollars that could be going to public education, and in this particular case it could go to private schools. I am opposed to that. I view that as a voucher plan. That might be attractive to the Senator. There are some who believe that is a big mistake and believe we ought to use the public taxpayer dollars one way or another, whether it be through the direct expenditure or whether it be through tax deductions and tax credits. We believe that ought to go to public education. That is a disagreement. If we brought this out next year or brought it out here with a whole bunch of other proposals, I would still disagree. On the whole question of who benefits and who does not and which communities are clamoring for this, now I get to the point: If on the whole question of the savings account it ultimately gets to $7 per child, I don't see that as a great benefit. I certainly don't see how it gets to many people. Even if you want them to get to the exclusive private schools, I don't think it helps much. This is where I really disagree with my colleague. I am sure there are organizations and people who support this plan. I am sure they do it in good faith. The question is opportunity before the Senate. Either we put this $1.2 billion here or we say there are better uses. I argue there are better uses. I argue there are better uses for the money. Now, we have talked about what proposals have been vetted or have not been vetted. My colleague from New Hampshire came out here with an argument that was interesting. I think he had every right to make it. He said we will deal with this in the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. However, I will give some examples. We had a pretty long discussion about title I. This is talking about low- and moderate-income families. This is a place where the Federal Government is a real player. This is terribly important for kids who come from disadvantaged circumstances. It is funded at about one-third the level it should be funded. So in a lot of urban Minnesota, once you get to schools with less than 65 percent low-income students, there is no money. The other schools are not even eligible. I would argue, if it is $1.3 billion or $4 billion or $5 billion, or whatever amount of money you want to talk about, the opportunity cost of putting it into this plan is that you do not put it directly into a proven program that really benefits kids if given the funding and if given the accountability. I would rather put it there. What have we talked about and what have we not talked about? It should not have taken Columbine. But we have had this discussion about violence. We have had this discussion about how does one get to these kids before they commit this kind of violent act. We have had this discussion about the need for support services for kids. We have had this discussion about so many kids feeling anonymous in the schools. We have talked about the need to have counselors. Some of us have had amendments out on the floor to provide funding for more counselors in our schools, to provide support services to kids, to students. That is an important education program. I doubt whether any Senator, if he or she is in a school--I try to be in a school in Minnesota every 2 weeks--does not hear about the need to have more counselors and more support services for students, many of whom, if they are not the top of their class and they are not a great athlete, feel lost. I argue we would be making a much better investment if we invested it in this program. There is another issue we have had on the floor that is not new. You cannot argue we should not be out here talking about it because we never talked about it before. I would be pleased to fault the administration on this as well, I say to my colleague from Georgia. I believe someday we are going to do this. I think the place where the Federal Government can be a real player --in fact, if I was the one who was writing this amendment, if I agreed with the concept, I would apply it to this area. I would apply it to early childhood development as well. We should be a real player pre-kindergarten. My colleague may say it does not give people enough time to work up the savings for when they have children, if they are very young. But you don't know. Maybe you would let grandparents be able to do it for their children's children. I don't know. But I will say this. It is absolutely pathetic how little we have done by way of an investment in early childhood development. It is pathetic. We have study after study, book after book, documentary after documentary, White House conferences, we all love children, we are all committed to children, and we all know the medical evidence is irrefutable and irreducible that you have to get it right for kids. If I had $1.3 billion over the next 5 years, I would put it into early childhood development. You can make a real difference for children and a real difference for families because, after all, what is most important to families, or parents, is that their children do well in school. The fact is, the reality is, that all too many young people, children in America, come to kindergarten behind. I think the big crisis in education is the learning gap between those kids who have had the support at home, who have had parents who can afford the best by way of developmental childcare, children who have been read to widely, are already computer literate, who have been encouraged, they have that spark of learning, and they come to kindergarten and they are ready to go. Many children come to kindergarten way behind. What in the world are we doing debating this piece of legislation as opposed to talking about this amount of money--or much more, I would argue--by way of investment in early childhood development? I say to my colleague from Georgia, I could talk about other issues as well, but I come to the floor to oppose this on the following grounds: One, I believe it is a fantasy to think $2,000 in savings is going to mean much for most hard-pressed families in Minnesota. They don't have that money for savings. Two, the way the tax benefit works, by definition, whatever money you are not liable for, if you are in a higher tax liability, you get the biggest break, so it is going to benefit more the people on the top. The third point I argue is that I am opposed to using public dollars when we do not even have enough dollars for public education right now, for private education, for what is essentially a voucher plan. Someday in the future, if somebody can show me we have really made the investment in public education--I heard my colleague from New Hampshire talk about all the money we spent that hadn't worked. I would like to talk about areas in which we have not invested. Then I might be willing to talk about how we would use dollars and talk about vouchers. Not now. I do not believe this is the way to go. You would have to persuade me we have really made a commitment. That is my fourth point; whether it be this amount of money, whether it be today, whether it be tomorrow, whether it be next week, if the Senate is really serious about children and education, here is where I do join Senator Kennedy 100 percent--and this is not so much directed at my colleague from Georgia; he has his piece of legislation here; he believes in it--but honestly, we have done next to nothing. This has been ridiculous. I do not believe the way we have been spending our time week after week after week. I am glad we are out here starting a debate. I actually commend my colleague from Georgia for bringing out a piece of legislation that at least deals with education. But, honest to goodness, we have done next to nothing. We have had hardly any votes, hardly any legislation, hardly any opportunities to introduce amendments to bills. I say to the majority leader and majority party, it is very difficult. I think, frankly, it is difficult for all of us to represent our States well when we do not have a real legislative process going on. I will get to the education part of it in a moment, but I will speak about it in broader terms. Take this last week. You go home. You meet with people and people are glad to meet with you. I think we all have had that experience. They are talking about their work; they are excited. You think you could make a difference as a Senator--and you would not be in the Senate if you didn't think you could make a difference. I had one meeting with parents talking about depression and suicide among kids--it is the second leading killer of our children, ages 18 to 25--and the lack of any kind of support and the lack of services. I could go on and on. I talk to veterans. There are a whole set of unmet needs in the VA health care system. Then we come back here and we have quorum calls or no piece of legislation and no opportunity for amendment. We do not have a legislative process going on in the Senate in general. It is unbelievable. I say to the majority party, I don't think we can represent people back in our States very well unless we get real about the concerns and circumstances of people's lives and what we are doing. I think this has been, to quote someone else, a do-nothing Senate; a do-nothing Congress. I would argue--not that the amendment of my colleague from Georgia is a do-nothing amendment; it is not. He thinks it is the right step. But I say, frankly, as opposed to $7 per kid at best, as opposed to talking about $2,000 in savings that most families I know in Minnesota can't come close to saving, as opposed to a tax break that is going to benefit people more on the upper end--I would say in my discussions, and I try to be in a school every 2 weeks, what people talk about--I think this was Senator Kennedy's point earlier--is they say we need good teachers. We need to have smaller classes. Students talk about how they are sharing textbooks. They have these political science or government textbooks. Minnesota is a pretty small education State, and the last President they talk about is Ronald Reagan. It is way out of date. They don't have good textbooks. Everybody is talking about computers and technology, but the textbooks are hopelessly outdated. They talk about the need to get it right for kids before kindergarten. I didn't say to the Presiding Officer that he would not think Ronald Reagan wasn't one of the greatest Presidents. I am just saying there have been other Presidents since Ronald Reagan. I see my colleague, Senator Sessions, smiling. He can't say anything to me because he is the Presiding Officer, and I can give it to him right now. They talk about school construction. That sounds very abstract, but a lot of buildings are in disrepair and decrepit. We do not tell our kids we care much about them when we do not do anything to rebuild crumbling schools. This is the discussion I hear. They also talk about the question of digital divide and making sure we have access to technology in our schools. I am OK with having this amendment before us, but I disagree with the amendment for the reasons I have stated. The Senator from Georgia disagrees with my disagreement. The larger issue is, frankly, I do not think to most people in the country and to most people I represent that this is really a piece of legislation that deals with their needs or their children's needs or deals with the challenges we have in education. My question is, When in the world are we going to get real about this?

Mr. WELLSTONE. My colleague says it is in addition to other things. The ``other'' is not anywhere near what we should be doing. Whatever it is subtracts from the other things we could be doing. I do not buy his argument that there are other things we are doing and this is just in addition because of the unmet needs.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I am talking about the decisive areas in which we should be making an investment. I do not think this is the way we should go at all. I yield for a question.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I will finish. I am a little frustrated--not with my colleague. I am supposed to meet with the Egyptian Ambassador. I just received a note. I have been keeping him waiting. Let me respond to my colleague from Georgia on a couple of different counts. First of all, as far as Federal programs, we can talk about that $1 leveraged many times over. I can give the Senator a couple of examples. One great example is the Women, Infants, and Children Program. By the way, we have a real problem right now, with a booming economy, of hunger of children in America. The reports are very troubling. Every single study I look at says if you get it right by an early childhood investment, it pays for itself over and over. I cannot give a ratio, a dollar amount, but I can tell you either you invest in children when they are young or you pay later with high rates of dropouts--I do not think my colleague disagrees--high rates of substance abuse, and high rates of violence. There are clearly areas where you make investments on the front and it pays for itself over and over. Anything that is early childhood development fits the Senator's criteria. I am saying that is where we should be putting the money, and that is where I would put this $1.3 billion and more. That is part of my disagreement. It is a matter of priorities. A dollar spent is a dollar spent one way or the other. I am attracted--I should not say this; I should be out here trying to demolish the proposal of the Senator from Georgia, but it is presented in good faith and there is a vision to some of it that I understand. The notion that this can encourage people to save and match money and have responsibility and put it into education--all of that I like, but I again argue, frankly, for a lot of families, especially on the low- moderate income end, it is not likely, even with the best intentions and the best commitment to children, they are going to be the ones who can take the greatest advantage of this benefit. It is going to be much more on the upper-income end. Therefore, I think it is a mistake. If this is adopted, if it becomes law, and I am proven wrong, I will be glad to be proven wrong, but I do not think I will be. I yield the floor and thank my colleague from Georgia for his comments.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. I ask unanimous consent that Jill Hickson, who is a fellow in our office, be allowed to be on the floor during the duration of this debate.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I regret that I cannot support S. 1287, the Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments Act of 2000. I cannot support this bill because it fails to meet the safety concerns of our local communities regarding the hazards of nuclear waste. I cannot support this bill because it poses an unacceptable danger to the lives and health of the thousands of Minnesotans and millions of Americans who live near shipment routes. By dramatically increasing the number of hazardous shipments through local communities, S. 1287 increases the risk of transportation accidents involving nuclear waste and could put public health and safety in jeopardy. This legislation would mean an additional 800 shipments in the first two years, growing to about 1,800 shipments annually by the fifth year. These shipments would continue for at least 25 years, traveling within half a mile of 50 million Americans. Under this legislation, highly dangerous nuclear waste would be shipped through 40 or more states, including my own state of Minnesota, regardless of whether it is safe for our local communities, and without their input. Without reliable and efficient emergency response safeguards for our local communities, S. 1287 fails to protect local communities from even a small accident during the shipment of nuclear waste. Recently, DOE projected that a nuclear waste transportation accident in a rural area with even a small release of radioactive material would contaminate 42 square miles. DOE also estimated that it would take 460 days to clean up such an accident, at a cost of $620 million. The safety record of nuclear waste transportation should give us pause. Between 1964 and 1997, the Department of Energy (DOE) made approximately 2,913 shipments of used nuclear fuel. During this time, there were 47 safety incidents involving nuclear shipments, including 6 accidents. Furthermore, S. 1287 undermines the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) standard-setting process. It would delay the EPA's existing statutory authority to adopt health and safety standards to protect local communities from the release of radioactive materials. This delay stands in fundamental contradiction to the claimed urgency of this legislation. It also highlights the misplaced priorities of S. 1287, with an unacceptable emphasis on disposal at any cost, regardless of whether the safety and health of local communities have been adequately provided for. It is especially regrettable that S. 1287 does not resolve our dilemma regarding the future of nuclear waste storage. Nobody, including me, wants this waste to stay onsite forever, but we need a safe and responsible solution for disposal of the waste we have created. As we head into the 21st century, we urgently need to develop a policy that protects the health and safety of local communities and all Americans. Unfortunately, this bill fails to meet that requirement. S. 1287 is a disappointing step in the wrong direction and a regression from past legislative efforts in this area. And for that reason I am voting against it.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. The Senator from Florida has been gracious enough to allow me to take a few moments, and that is all I will do. I ask unanimous consent to be able to do that.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Florida for allowing me to speak. I yield the floor. Mr. GRAHAM addressed the Chair.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I rise to introduce a piece of legislation that I hope will be called Katie's Law. This past year, colleagues, in Carlton County, we lost a young, beautiful woman who worked at a convenience store. She was abducted. Everybody in the community helped the family. Tragically, later her body was recovered. A suspect has been arrested for her murder. I have, along with Sheila, stayed in close touch with Katie's family. We have talked quite often with her mother Pam, her dad Steve, and her brother Patrick. When I went to the service, I couldn't even stand it, just to see the pain. This never should have happened. I thought about what I could do as a Senator to make a difference. I, therefore, started talking to a lot of our rural law enforcement people. They told me that whatever we could do in Congress, the key would be to enhance their ability to respond quickly and aggressively to such crimes, that that would make a difference. So there are two pieces to this piece of legislation. I hope I will get tremendous bipartisan support. The first is an abduction emergency fund called the Katie Poirier Abduction Emergency Fund. Basically, what I am saying, colleagues, is that for rural law enforcement, especially in the critical first 72 hours, they should never have to worry about whether they will have the resources and what the cost will be. This will be an emergency fund they can draw upon from the Attorney General, to State agencies, down to the local level. For our rural law enforcement community, this is critically important. Then the second piece is to provide local law enforcement officers with resources to use the latest identification systems to solve and prevent crime. In our metropolitan areas we have the technology, but in our rural communities quite often our local law enforcement communities do not have the capacity to link up with systems such as the FBI's very sophisticated fingerprint identification system. This can be the difference between 2 hours and 2 months. There will be money that will go to local law enforcement, rural law enforcement so they can be able to take advantage of this technology. Altogether, with the abduction emergency fund, we are talking about $10 million over 3 years, for $30 million; and on the technology upgrade for rural law enforcement, we are talking about $20 million over 3 years, for $60 million--total cost for 3 years, $90 million. This is incredibly important to rural America. It is an investment we should make. While I know no piece of legislation can ever provide 100 percent safety for our children, I do know this piece of legislation will make a difference for rural law enforcement and will provide some protection for our children and will provide some protection for our rural citizens. I have never been more determined to pass any piece of legislation than this small step. It is something I think I should do as a Senator. I think as Senators talk to their rural communities from around the country, they will find this does meet a very critical need.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I rise to introduce a piece of legislation that I hope will be called Katie's Law. This past year, colleagues, in Carlton County, we lost a young, beautiful woman who worked at a convenience store. She was abducted. Everybody in the community helped the family. Tragically, later her body was recovered. A suspect has been arrested for her murder. I have, along with Sheila, stayed in close touch with Katie's family. We have talked quite often with her mother Pam, her dad Steve, and her brother Patrick. When I went to the service, I couldn't even stand it, just to see the pain. This never should have happened. I thought about what I could do as a Senator to make a difference. I, therefore, started talking to a lot of our rural law enforcement people. They told me that whatever we could do in Congress, the key would be to enhance their ability to respond quickly and aggressively to such crimes, that that would make a difference. So there are two pieces to this piece of legislation. I hope I will get tremendous bipartisan support. The first is an abduction emergency fund called the Katie Poirier Abduction Emergency Fund. Basically, what I am saying, colleagues, is that for rural law enforcement, especially in the critical first 72 hours, they should never have to worry about whether they will have the resources and what the cost will be. This will be an emergency fund they can draw upon from the Attorney General, to State agencies, down to the local level. For our rural law enforcement community, this is critically important. Then the second piece is to provide local law enforcement officers with resources to use the latest identification systems to solve and prevent crime. In our metropolitan areas we have the technology, but in our rural communities quite often our local law enforcement communities do not have the capacity to link up with systems such as the FBI's very sophisticated fingerprint identification system. This can be the difference between 2 hours and 2 months. There will be money that will go to local law enforcement, rural law enforcement so they can be able to take advantage of this technology. Altogether, with the abduction emergency fund, we are talking about $10 million over 3 years, for $30 million; and on the technology upgrade for rural law enforcement, we are talking about $20 million over 3 years, for $60 million--total cost for 3 years, $90 million. This is incredibly important to rural America. It is an investment we should make. While I know no piece of legislation can ever provide 100 percent safety for our children, I do know this piece of legislation will make a difference for rural law enforcement and will provide some protection for our children and will provide some protection for our rural citizens. I have never been more determined to pass any piece of legislation than this small step. It is something I think I should do as a Senator. I think as Senators talk to their rural communities from around the country, they will find this does meet a very critical need.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, first of all, if it is all right with my colleague from Illinois, I will speak on two matters. I thank him for his eloquence. It turns out on some of the issues that my colleague raised, we are not 100 percent in agreement, but I think Senator Durbin is a Senator who speaks with sincerity and marshals his evidence for his point of view. I think Democrats are very lucky to have him as a Senator speaking for our party and for the country.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, yesterday I spoke about what is happening in Chechnya. I believe I should speak out about this. I hope other Senators will, as well. I have a letter that I ask unanimous consent be printed in the Record. This is a letter to President Putin.