Paul Wellstone

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. I will just read part of this letter: Dear President Vladimir Putin: We are writing to express our deep concern over the conflict in Chechnya and your response to the humanitarian tragedy there. We recognize the importance of Russia's territorial integrity, and your government's obligation to protect its citizens from terrorist and other acts of aggression. This responsibility, however, does not and cannot justify the use of indiscriminate force against civilians and the displacement of hundreds of thousands of persons. Since October 1, the Russian military offensive in Chechnya has involved a relentless bombing and artillery campaign that has killed thousands of innocent civilians and displaced over 200,000 people. Reports from those fleeing Chechnya detail incidents of widespread looting, summary executions, detentions and rape. As you know, Russia has assumed obligations under the Geneva conventions and commitments under the OSCE Code of Conduct on Politico- Military Aspects of Security. Common Article 3 of the Geneva Convention states that in ``armed conflicts not of an international character, persons taking no part in hostilities . . . shall be treated humanely.'' Article 36 of the OSCE Code of Conduct states that ``if recourse to force cannot be avoided in performing internal security missions, each participating State will ensure that its use must be commensurate with the needs of enforcement. The armed forces will take due care to avoid injury to civilians or their property.'' Russia's campaign in Chechnya violates these commitments. In this letter, I am urging President Putin that the Russian Government allow into Chechnya and Ingushetia an international monitoring mission. This international monitoring mission should have unfettered access and a broad mandate to monitor and report on the humanitarian situation. The Russian Government should immediately allow all civilians safe passage from Chechnya, assist those persons who have been displaced from Chechnya as a result of this conflict, and allow representatives of international humanitarian agencies full and unimpeded access to those persons in order to provide humanitarian relief. President Putin has made a commitment that an international monitoring presence would be allowed. This has not happened. Finally, I am urging the Russian Government to initiate investigations into alleged human rights abuses and to hold accountable those responsible. As a Senator, I send this letter to President Putin today. I think it is very important that he devote every effort to achieve a peaceful resolution. Neither the use of force in 1994 to 1996, which left over 80,000 civilians dead, nor the current use of force in Chechnya will enhance the prospects for any durable settlement to this conflict. I am sending this letter today. I am going to send a copy to the Senator from Colorado and other colleagues as well. I hope other Senators will speak out. There is a delegation of several high-ranking officials, parliamentarians with the Chechnya Government, who are here, and they have been trying to meet with our State Department. So far, they have not been able to arrange any meeting at all. I am not asking the State Department to recognize the official government, but our State Department has met with dissidents from China and dissidents from Russia over the years. I think these parliamentarians, these courageous individuals from Chechnya, deserve at least an audience with the State Department--whether it be with the Secretary of State, whether it be with Strobe Talbott, or whether it be with Secretary Koh who has done such a fabulous job on human rights issues. I just want to say to the State Department today--I am going to continue with calls--I just think it is wrong to not at least meet with these individuals. We have a massacre of innocent people going on there. As the son of a Jewish immigrant--born in the Ukraine, who lived in Russia, and fled persecution in Russia--I understand our Government's role in the world to speak out for human rights. Our silence, the silence of the administration and our Government, is deafening. I think Democrats and Republicans need to call on President Putin to live up to his commitment to allow an international monitoring force to protect innocent civilians and to get humanitarian assistance to people. This is a moderate, modest request.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I didn't want to take any time during the Democrats' timeframe because I am so appreciative of Senator Durbin's remarks. I have another perspective, which is just my own intellectually honest and, by the way, personally heartfelt analysis of the budget. I was struck when Senator Durbin was talking about: If not now, when? The words of Rabbi Hill, his third century admonition, were heard by many. Rabbi Hill, speaking to Jews, said: If we don't speak for ourselves, who will? And if we speak only for ourselves, who are we? And if not now, when? I think Senator Durbin was talking about this booming economy and the fact that with a booming economy and the business cycle up, we can make our very good country even better. I agree. Let me spell out my dissent from the President's budget. I did it yesterday, but today I want to do it in a somewhat different way. I do worry about the cynicism of people in the country toward politics and toward government. I think we all do, regardless of party. I think one of the ways we get ourselves into trouble is when there is such a disconnect or a gap between what we say and what we say we are going to do versus the actual budgets and what, in fact, we really are calling for by way of investment. As I hear the President talk about his budget and where we are heading as a country, I hear the President talk about the goal of ending child poverty; of making sure we have health care coverage for our children; of making sure every child comes to kindergarten ready to learn; making sure that when children are no longer children but young people, like our pages, they will eventually be able to afford college, if they choose to make that higher education decision; that there will be economic security for senior citizens. Then I look at the budget and this emphasis on Social Security, Medicare, yes, and basically paying down more of the debt. Frankly, when all is said and done--if somebody can prove me wrong, I am pleased to be proven wrong--the actual nonmilitary discretionary spending over the next 10 years is, in real dollar terms, cut. There is no additional investment at all. Now, the way in which we try to do this in this budget is through the tax system, because politically it seems as if Democrats are scared to death to talk about investment in people any longer for fear they will be accused of being a big spender. Therefore, we do it through the Tax Code, through deductions and tax credits. Let me give credit where credit is due, and let me tell you where I think there is this huge gap between what we say we are going to do and what we are really going to do. The earned-income tax credit is one of the best things we have done for poor people in this country, many of whom are children. Refundable tax credits makes a whole lot more sense. When we did the HOPE scholarship for higher education, we didn't make it refundable, so a lot of young people or not so young people who were attending community colleges, who had incomes under $28,000, $29,000 a year, got no help anyway. They had no tax liability from which to get a credit. Refundable tax credits help low- and moderate-income working Americans more. But with all due respect, we have made hardly any additional investment. Sometimes, if you are going to do it through the tax system, if you are going to talk about long-term care, I say to the Senator from Colorado--I know this is a huge issue in his State-- families are thinking long and hard. I have been through it. Sheila and I and our children, we went through it with my parents. They are no longer alive. They both had Parkinson's disease. I know what it is like. You don't want your parent or parents to be in a nursing home. The United States of America is still the only country in the world where you have to go to the poorhouse when you are in a nursing home before you are going to get public help. You have to basically lose everything. You want your parents, or a loved one with a disability, to be able to live at home in as near normal circumstances as possible and with dignity. We say there will be economic security. We are now concerned about long-term care and that people should be able to live at home. Do you know what. In this budget proposal--maybe I am wrong--when you finally get down to it, you are probably talking about a couple thousand dollars a year that a family can get on a tax credit. For my mother and father, and other mothers and fathers and grandparents, if we want to make a commitment to people being able to live at home with dignity, it is going to cost them more than $3,000 a year to have some people come in and help them do that. We are so much for the children, and we have all this irrefutable medical evidence about the development of the brain. Last night, I was lucky enough to have dinner with Rob Reiner. He is so committed to this, and I thank him for his work. We know we have to get it right-- prekindergarten. The Federal Government should be a player. It should be centralized, and we should get funds to the neighborhoods and community level and have really good developmental child care. We have a pittance in this budget. Yes, we add more money for Head Start. I guess we should since, right now, we have been covering, under the age of 3, only 2 percent of the kids who are eligible. That is hardly much of a commitment to give children from poor income backgrounds. We have additional money, but in terms of the need, we only cover 20 percent of low-income families in America. This is a huge issue for middle-income and working families. We are talking about good child care, not unsafe child care. It is a pittance. It is a pittance. So my point is--and the Presiding Officer is Republican, so don't take this the wrong way; we like each other--I think and I hope we like each other. I think what the President has proposed is better than what the Republicans propose for sure. The Republican view, when it comes to these issues, is that there is not much the Government can or should do but give people a tax break, most of it going to the people on top. That doesn't meet the needs of working families in this country anyway. If you don't own a large corporation and you are not wealthy, there is a role for Government by way of getting some resources down to the community level that can make a real difference to families. But where I dissent from this budget is where the polls say emphasize this, so we talk about it. The polls say it is a hot issue, so we talk about it. But the truth of the matter is that when people hear us, they actually think what we are proposing is going to make a huge difference, so that children won't be in poverty. We have more children in severe poverty today--one-half the poverty income --than we have ever had. We still have about 13 million poor children. People think a budget is going to help us end child poverty and make a commitment to prekindergarten and good child care, so that every child who comes to kindergarten is ready to learn, or the budget will help the elderly with health care. There is a little bit, but most families will find out there isn't going to be nearly enough--not if we truly want to live up to the goodness of America. Every child should have the same opportunity to do well. People who have worked hard and built this country and are on their backs at the end of their lives ought to have decent coverage. They ought not to have to worry about going to a nursing home and losing everything. Higher education should be affordable. People should not fall between the cracks in health care. I was at a dramatic hearing yesterday on suicide. Dr. Jameson from Johns Hopkins and many other people testified. People need coverage because of a struggle with mental illness. I argue that it is politically unsafe, and because there is substance abuse and addiction, they should not be discriminated against and denied coverage. We could save so many lives with the dollars if we did better. People who work hard but don't have any coverage at all ought to have coverage for themselves and their loved ones. That is not in this budget. We hardly make a dent. So I take the words of my colleagues, the Democrats with whom I work, who say the economy is booming and we can do better, and I say I agree: So why are we not doing much better? I think we have been taught to think small. I think that, unfortunately, part of what has been going on over x number of years is that we Democrats have decided we should think small. The conventional wisdom is that that is the way to win--think small; come up with programs that people think are popular, and then appropriate, get some money, and do it through the Tax Code so nobody can say you are spending money. But you are, either way. But you don't even come close to meeting the needs of the people to whom I say you are going to respond. I think it invites cynicism. No wonder people say Government programs don't work. They hear all this fanfare in press conferences, and, frankly, the investment isn't there. The people aren't helped very much. I say to the Democrats--and I get to do it because I am a Senator and I get to speak to the floor to whoever wants to listen--I think everybody says the reason you have a 50-percent hole in the electorate, with 50 percent of the people voting in a Presidential election, much less a congressional election, much less a local election, is because of money, politics, and disillusionment. That is true. But the other part is that we aren't necessarily standing for politics that really speaks to people's lives, where ordinary citizens can say: Yes, the party, the Democratic Party, the party of the people, is behind us. We know it. Here is what they say they stand for, and they are willing to make the investments to make sure that, for parents and grandparents, our children and grandchildren can do better. I think that is the void in American politics. I think it is a shame that this budget doesn't do a better job of filling that void. Frankly, I don't think we Democrats are doing the job we should do. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, in the few minutes I have remaining today, I will talk in specifics about the security situation here at the Capitol, and what is going on and what is not going on by way of living up to our commitment to Capitol Hill police officers, and also to the public. As I said, we have made the commitment, and we should honor the commitment. You need two officers at a post for their security, much less the security of the public. Two examples. Please remember, for those who are listening, the officer who works alone at any number of these posts is responsible for the following: Watching the x ray monitor for weapons or contraband, personally screening persons with a handheld metal detector--I say to the Senator from Colorado, we come in every day, and we see them doing this--controlling pedestrian traffic at entrances, and watching both entry and exit doors for people who try to bypass security. That is what one officer at one post is supposed to do. Example: Ford House Office Building, Annex 2, Third Street door entrance, 441, Third Street, Southwest. By the way, the Third Street entrance is a multiple-door entrance. Monday, February 7, 2000, one officer was assigned to this entrance from 0700 to 1500 hours. From 1200 to 1300 hours, 512 people entered through the Third Street entrance--one officer. The Ford Building sits directly across from the Federal Center Southwest metro station, for those who are trying to identify it. From 0800 to 0900 hours, 215 people entered through the entrance--one officer. This is Monday, February 7. By the way, during the highest volume of pedestrian traffic, an officer who was passing by just simply stopped and offered assistance. But that is not the way it is supposed to be. Hart Senate Office Building, 120 Constitution Avenue, Northeast; C Street door entrance to the Hart Building. This is a multiple-door entrance that is open to staff--Government workers--from 0700 to 0900 hours. This entrance is actually directly next to Senator Nickles' office. Tuesday, February 3, one officer was assigned to this entrance from 0700 to 1500 hours. As I say, that was Tuesday, February 3. From 0900 to 1000 hours, 432 people entered through this entrance, not to mention the 332 staffers--Government workers--from 0800 to 0900 hours--one officer. Just think about the number of people who are streaming in with one officer. Again, I don't know exactly who is right in terms of how this problem gets solved. I think some of our police officers believe there are overtime funds for this purpose. It may be that upper management is arguing that those funds are not available. Others say we have to have more funds to hire more people. One way or the other, either there is money there for the overtime funds to properly staff these posts or additional money is necessary in appropriation. I just gave two concrete examples on the House and the Senate side this month of February. I don't think any Senator or anyone in any decisionmaking position who is responsible for the security situation here--starting with these police officers, for them, much less for the public, much less for us--can justify this. It cannot be defended. I will say it one more time. I think it is OK for me to say it. If I say it the wrong way, it is not OK for me to say it. We lost two fine officers. Agent Gibson, Officer Chestnut, we lost them. I do believe we all said to one another that we were going to do everything humanly possible to get the very best security for our officers. No one can ever guarantee a 100-percent safe situation. What we do know is that we can do everything that is humanly possible to try to meet that goal. I just gave two examples this month that show we have fallen way short of meeting that goal. We are not doing right by the Capitol Hill police officers. We are not doing right by the public. We have to take action. I will give other examples over the days and weeks to come. Of course, my hope is this problem will be dealt with. I thank Senator Durbin for allowing me this time. Not seeing any other Senators on the floor, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. WELLSTONE. I ask unanimous consent to speak for 10 minutes as in morning business.

Mr. WELLSTONE

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

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, first of all, I have been coming to the floor every day because of a commitment I made. I will just take a couple of minutes on this.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to speak in morning business for 15 minutes.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Chair.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, yesterday I met with members of the Chechen Government. They discussed the horrific conditions currently facing their homeland. It is clear that the Russian Government must move to immediately allow into Chechnya and neighboring Ingushetia an international monitoring force to monitor and report on the humanitarian situation. It must also immediately move to assist those persons who have been displaced from Chechnya as a result of this conflict and to allow representatives of the international community access to those persons in order to provide humanitarian relief. As many of you know, the Russian assault on the Chechen capital Grozny is only one more campaign in a long series of Russian military offensives in Chechnya. In September I expressed my concerns to Boris 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 1994-1996--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. Nonetheless, the Russian leadership has again chosen to use force and the current tragedy has now reached unimaginable heights. Russian forces have used indiscriminate and disproportionate force in their bombings of civilian targets. This has resulted in the deaths of thousands of innocent civilians and displaced over 200,000 others. But the suffering is not limited to Chechnya. The neighboring province of Ingushetia has been flooded with refugees. Mr. President, I remind you of the recent snow storm that swept the east coast. I need not remind you of how it compares to a Russian winter. A humanitarian crisis equal to that within Chechnya itself is beginning in Ingushetia. I implore President Putin to hold firm to his commitment made to the Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly Group last month to allow into Ingushetia an international monitoring presence to determine what is happening--to determine the best means of getting some immediate relief to the refugees and those trapped in Chechnya. And I urge the Russian Government to lift its press restrictions so that the citizens of the Russian Federation see the truth for what it is. For there is no doubt that if the people knew the full story of human suffering in Chechnya-- on both sides of the conflcit--they would devote every effort to its peaceful resolution. Russian authorities maintain a virtual ban on access to Chechnya by international and local journalists. Groups--such as the Soldiers' Mothers Committee can only monitor Russian casualties through their own sources, through word of mouth, and struggle to determine the fate of their sons in Chechnya. In the past few weeks Russia's main commercial television station was kicked out of the military's journalist pool for showing an interview with a Russian military officer describing troop losses, and Russian officials arrested Andrei Babitsky, a 10-year- veteran reporter for the U.S.-sponsored Radio Liberty, who had been reporting from the capital Grozny. The Russian Government then exchanged the journalist for Russian soldiers held by Chechen rebels yet as of today, the journalist has not been seen or hear from. The stories of the refugees fleeing Chechnya are horrific: incidents of widespread looting, summary executions, detentions, and rape. Three weeks ago the Russian Commander for the North Caucasus Group of Forces blamed Russian ``mistakes'' on their ``soft-heartedness.'' He then ordered that only children under 10, men over 60, and girls and women would be considered refugees. Although the order was eventually repealed, teenage boys and civilian men had been in effect sentenced to die. Orders such as these are intolerable and must be condemned. It is fundamentally unacceptable to deny any civilian the right to flee the fighting--to trap them in this dangerous war. And where will 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 detail Chechens in the 1994-96 Chechen war. That event stains the memory of the Chechen people--and its happening again. Today adolescent boys are being ripped from their mothers arms at the border as they try to escape. Mothers remain in the war zone because they refuse to leave without their sons. Zura, a mother of three, told human rights monitors at the border that guards prevented a 59-year-old man from crossing over, and that two boys, aged 12 and 13, made it past border guards only by concealing themselves on the bus. Russian leadership are obligated under humanitarian law to do everything to avoid civilian casualties and allow civilians to flee to safety. Then there are the numerous reports of rape. In the Chechen town of Shali a six-months pregnant 23-year-old woman was raped and murdered. Her mother-in-law was executed in the same incident. And Mr. President, many incidents 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 made it difficult to document cases 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. President Putin must move quickly to resolve this situation in a manner consistent with Russia's obligations to the international community. I urge my colleagues to join me in full condemnation of the use of indiscriminate force against the civilians in Chechnya and to remind the Russian leadership that the world is watching. The Russian Government must move to immediately allow into Chechnya and Ingushetia an international monitoring force to determine what is happening. It must immediately move to assist those persons who have been displaced from Chechnya as a result of this conflict and to allow representatives of the international community access to those persons in order to provide humanitarian relief. And the Russian leadership must 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. Those responsible for human rights abuses in Chechnya must be held accountable. President Putin must end this conflict and must devote every effort, including the acceptance of third party mediation offers made months ago by the Council of Europe and the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, to its peaceful resolution.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I have not read his article today in the New York Times, but I congratulate former Secretary Robert Reich for a piece he wrote. I have only had it summarized, but he raises questions about this budget the President submitted. Without having even read the piece, I think I understand his framework. I say to the administration and to Democrats, I find a little unbelievable, with the economy booming and such flush economic times, when one actually looks ahead over the next decade, the nonmilitary discretionary spending and where we are going to be making cuts. I hear the Democrats talking about how we will reduce the debt, but I hear precious little about the investment. What I worry about is a disconnect between the words we speak and the budgets we present. The President said he had a budget that was all about making sure there would be health care coverage for every citizen, that he had a budget which would be about ending child poverty in America, that he had a budget which would be about making sure every child would come to kindergarten ready and able to learn, that he had a budget which would provide economic security for senior citizens. But looking at the investment in this budget, it is not there. I worry about that. I think one of the reasons people become disillusioned is that they think they will make a difference. I gave an example today at our luncheon meeting. My parents both had Parkinson's disease. We hear discussion that there will be economic security for senior citizens, there will be a commitment to long-term care, and then we see a tax credit that amounts to a particular amount of money; maybe for an individual family it would be $2,000 a year. For a family faced with long-term care needs, trying to figure out a way of staying at home and to have people help one stay at home, $2,000 a year is not going to do it. It is not going to even come close. I am troubled sometimes to hear my Senate colleagues, whom I love, taking the position that discretionary spending is actually staying below the cost of living. We are really keeping it down. We are adding no new dollars. But why is that good if, in the first place, some of our spending--I will say that, or investment--is inadequate? We should be a major player in pre-K, pre-kindergarten. That is where the Federal Government can make the biggest difference, getting the money and the resources down to the communities and neighborhoods so we can make a commitment to early childhood development, so we can make sure the men and women who want to work in this field are professionals who get decent salaries, rather than getting paid $7 an hour with no health care benefits; making sure families can afford this if both parents work or a single parent works; making sure this child care is not custodial but it is developmental and really helps children. We are going to have to spend a lot of money. It cannot be done on the cheap. We are going to have to dig into our pockets and make an investment. With all due respect, I appreciate some money for refundable child care tax credits, but when I look at this overall budget, the investment is not there. I am glad we are putting more money into Head Start, but we are not putting in anywhere near enough money to make sure every child who could benefit from Head Start will be able to benefit. We are certainly not putting the investment into affordable child care. I would argue the most important national goal for our country would be to make sure all children--no matter income or color of skin or rural or urban or boy or girl, by the time they go to kindergarten, through a combination of public sector investment, private sector help, volunteers--have been read to widely, all these children know the alphabet and know colors and shapes and sizes, and they know how to spell their name and they have been challenged and there have been people to nurture them and to support them. We are not doing that. So I say to the Chair--he is a Republican--I am actually being more critical of Democrats. I am starting to think the policy debate goes like this. Republicans say when it comes to the most pressing issues of working families' lives, like affordable child care, the President says we want health care coverage for citizens--but this budget does not provide that. It does not take us anywhere near universal health care coverage. So Republicans say universal health care coverage, affordable child care, investment in children--listen, when it comes to these issues, there is not that much the Government can or should do. I understand that. That is a legitimate ideology or point of view. Although, frankly, I think it works best for people who own their own large corporations and are wealthy. I don't think it works for most of the people. The President says: No, we care about children. We are going to invest in children. We are going to have universal health care coverage. We are going to have economic security for the elderly. We are going to make sure no child is in poverty. But then what we say is: But, politically, we cannot make the investment because then it will look as if we are spending too much. In which case, frankly, the differences between the two parties don't make a heck of a lot of difference to a lot of our most vulnerable citizens. So I wanted to come to the floor, first of all, to congratulate former Secretary Bob Reich for raising questions about the priorities of the President's budget and all the money that is being put into debt reduction. You can and should put some money into debt reduction. But do you know what else? It would seem to me we also want to make sure we do well for children right now. In the next century, we are going to be asking them to carry an awful lot on their shoulders. We know there are a lot of children we are not doing very well by. My question is, in the words of Rabbi Hillel, his third century admonition: ``If not now, when?'' If we Democrats do not start speaking up for children and talk about the need to invest in children and to invest in pre-K and get it right by way of developmental child care--which should be huge, it should be all over the country and there should be resources--if we do not speak up for children, Democrats, and for investment in early childhood education, then who will? ``If not now, when?'' I think I have run out of time. I yield the floor.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, first of all, I have been speaking about the security of the Capitol Hill police. I made a commitment to myself, much less to others, that I would continue to speak on it. I always start with the service for Officers Chestnut and Gibson and a commitment I am absolutely sure we made to the Capitol Hill police that we would do everything possible to assure security for them, much less the public. One of the things we have to do--and we have to do it today; if not today, tomorrow; but I don't think we should let time go by--is make whatever kind of policy change and whatever kind of commitment of resources need to be made to assure that at every post there are two officers. Again, a lot of the posts have many people entering. If there is one officer with lots of people coming through a door and, God forbid, somebody deranged enters with the intention of committing an act of violence, it would be very difficult for that single officer to deal with such a person. I again call on all Members to do better by these police officers and to live up to this commitment. I am sure Republicans and Democrats all agree, but I will focus on this until I am sure we have followed through on a commitment we made because I don't think we have followed through on it yet.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Yes.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, if I might respond to my colleague, I appreciate his words. I think he is right. Senator Reid from Nevada is actually the only Senator who actually served on the Capitol Police. I think on the question of appropriations, you are right. This is timely. My own view is the police have a union so they do have a voice. This is, of course, new. I think the union leadership is very involved. I also say Sergeant at Arms Zeiglar has been very good about this and he thinks this is unacceptable and has to change. I don't think there is any question, whether it is an appropriations matter or whether it is reprogramming and having enough overtime pay so people can staff up that way, I don't know the answer. But I do know this, I think my colleague would agree, I don't believe any Senator or Representative can credibly say to the Capitol Hill police, these law enforcement officers: No, we can't spend the additional resources. It costs too much to make sure there is the security for them and the public. We cannot say that. My God, we have gone through a living hell here. If you think of Officer Chestnut and think of Agent Gibson and think of their families, I think the commitment we made to one another--of course you could never come up with a 100-percent certainty that you could prevent this from happening again. But we want to do everything we can. I appreciate what the Senator from Nevada said because it is true. When you have these posts, especially when there are lots of people coming in, you cannot have one officer there. I appreciate the Senator from Nevada speaking out on this. The Capitol Police--I did not expect it necessarily would be this way, but everywhere I have gone the last couple of days people have come up and been very gracious and said: Thank you very much for doing it. I think they feel in their hearts that it is important to get the support. For the Senator from Nevada to come out here and speak makes a big difference. I thank him.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Yes.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Senator.

Mr. WELLSTONE

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

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Wyoming for his graciousness. I will take 3 minutes at the most. I appreciate him giving me some Republican time for this.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I have made a commitment that I would come to the floor every day to speak about the Capitol Hill police but also about the public. Again, I want to repeat what I have said the last couple of days. As did many of my colleagues, I went to the service for officers Chestnut and Gibson. It was an unbelievably horrible and painful time--first of all, for their families. I do believe, at that time and since then, we made a commitment for our police officers, and for that matter for the public, that we would do everything we possibly could--albeit nothing is 100-percent effective-- to make sure such a tragedy would never happen again. I have come to the floor several times to point out that at too many posts, or at least at some times at some of our posts, we only have one officer. When you have lots of people coming in and you have one officer, if, God forbid, you have somebody who is deranged, that officer is in real peril and so is the public. I know we have made the commitment over and over again to have two officers at every post. I am not pretending to be the expert as to all the budgets, where the money has been spent, but I know this: We can do better by the Capitol Hill police officers, and we should. We can do better by the public. Whatever it takes, we need to honor our commitment and we need to make sure we have the necessary resources so we have two officers at these posts. There are many other issues. I am not going to get involved in these other issues because I am not the expert. I know what I have observed. I know the police officers with whom I have talked. I know the commitment we made to these police officers. So I am going to continue to speak about this a couple of minutes every day. I am hoping the appropriators and others will come through. I thank my colleague from Wyoming. I think all of us are in agreement on this; I believe this is not a Democrat or Republican debate at all. So I thank my colleague from Wyoming and yield the floor.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank my colleague.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I say to the Senator from Iowa--and I see the Senator from Oregon--I want to come out on the floor next week with some other Senators from farm country, and I think we should talk more about it. As I understand the Senator from Iowa--and he can correct me if I am wrong--it is that we don't want to wait until 2002 for a new farm bill. We want to reopen this farm bill and give our farmers some leverage so they can get a decent price. What we are doing is essentially saying to these grain companies and to these packers: Go ahead. You can get by with not having to worry about paying producers as little as possible because you have all the power of the marketplace. Then they will have enough money to support their families. Then we come in and provide them with some money so they can support their families. We are basically subsidizing these big grain companies and these packers. We are not getting to the root of the problem. If it is a farmer-owned reserve we are talking about, CRP, mid-size and family farmers, that is what people want. Zeroing in on mid-size farmers is what people want. They want to be able to make a decent price. Isn't that really what the Senator from Iowa was saying? This will be on my time.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I say to my colleague from Iowa the other thing which worries me is we had an estimate the other day by the USDA that net farm income was going to go down 17 percent this year. As I look at their figure for some sort of income support, it isn't going to be enough to provide even a safety net. But the point is it doesn't deal with the root causes. Let's have some fight. Let's say this farm bill is a miserable failure. Let's have some antitrust action. Let's have a level playing field. Let's give our farmers some leverage so they can get a decent price in the marketplace. I think there are a number of us who are going to come out on the floor with just those proposals. Am I correct?

Mr. WELLSTONE. I will make one final point, I say to the Senator from Oregon. It looks to me as if--I think it is going to happen--the religious community, the AFL-CIO, the farm organizations, and the environmental organizations are all beginning to organize for March 20- 21. Basically, rural America is coming here to raise the roof. I think it will be healthy for all of us. I think the pressure should be put on dealing with the price crisis and dealing with other issues that are important to rural America, which for too long have been out of sight and out of mind. I think we have to get off the dime. We have to make a difference. Mr. President, I want to reinforce what my colleague from Iowa said. I think what the President and the administration suggested for family farmers is too timid. Where is the fight? I appreciate getting some help to people--sort of safety-net help. Getting some income to our family farmers is not going to be enough. It doesn't deal with the root of the problem. We don't want to wait until 2002 to write a farm bill. It is a failed farm bill. It is a failed farm policy. We are grinding family farmers up into pieces. We are driving people off the land. It is an economic convulsion, and it calls for bold action. I don't know where the fight is. To tell you the truth, I don't see the fight. I say to the Senator from Iowa that we have different positions in the Presidential race. This has nothing to do with who we are supporting. But where is the fight? Where is the boldness? Where is the leadership? We need people--starting with the President--to come out and say this ``freedom to fail'' bill has not worked. There is tremendous economic pain. Time is not on our side. There is an economic convulsion out there. Family farmers in rural communities want a decent price. We want farmers to get a fair shake in the market. We want antitrust action. We want a fair trade policy. We want stable agriculture. We want a different farm policy. In all due respect, this proposal will only help people somewhat. Thank you. But we have to do a lot more.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I am pleased to yield.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank my colleague.