Paul Wellstone

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment, and I call up amendment No. 1842.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, let me first explain this amendment to colleagues and then marshal my evidence for it. I believe we will have a good, strong vote on the floor of the Senate for this amendment. I have introduced a similar amendment in the past, which lost by one vote, but I have now changed the amendment which I think will make it more acceptable to colleagues. In the 1996 welfare law we passed, we set aside $1 billion for high- performance bonuses to go to States, and currently this money goes to States. The way it works is, it uses a formula that takes into account the State's effectiveness in enabling TANF recipients to find jobs, which is terribly important. The whole goal of the welfare bill was to move families from welfare dependency to becoming economically independent. This amendment would add three more criteria. We have had, in the last year or two, a dramatic decline in food stamp participation, about a 25-percent decline. This should be of concern to all of us because the Food Stamp Program has been the most important safety net program for poor children in our country. Indeed, it was President Nixon, a Republican President, who, in 1972, federalized this program and said: One thing we are going to do as a national community is make sure children aren't going hungry in our country. We are going to make sure we have a program with national standards and that those families who are eligible to participate are, indeed, able to obtain this assistance. In addition, what we want to find out is the proportion of families leaving TANF who were covered by Medicaid or health insurance. Families USA, which is an organization that has tremendous credibility with all of us, issued a disturbing report a few months ago. To summarize it, because of the welfare bill, there are about 670,000 Americans who no longer have any health care coverage. Maybe that is worth repeating. Because of the welfare bill, there are about 670,000 Americans who no longer have any coverage. Since about two-thirds of welfare recipients have always been children--this was, after all, mainly for mothers and children--we want to make sure these children and these families still have health care coverage. We want to also make sure we get some information about the number of children in these working families who receive some form of affordable child care. In other words, again, what we want to find out is, as families move from welfare to work, which is the goal--and I think work with dignity is terribly important--we also want to make sure the children are OK. Again, I will use but one of many examples. It will take me some time to develop my argument, but one very gripping example, I say to the Chair, is when I was in east LA, I was meeting with a group of Head Start mothers. As we were discussing the Head Start Program and their children, one of the mothers was telling me she had been a welfare mother and was emphasizing that she was working. Indeed, she was quite proud of working. In the middle of our discussion, all of a sudden she became upset and started to cry. I asked her: If I am poking my nose into your business, pay no attention to me, but can you tell me why you are so upset? She said: The one problem with my working is when my second grader goes home--she lived in a housing project; later I visited that housing project--it is a pretty dangerous area. It used to be I could walk my second grader to school, and then I could walk her home, make sure she was OK. I was there with her. Now I am always frightened, especially after school. I tell her to go home, and I tell her to lock the door. I tell her not to take any phone calls because no one is there. It makes us wonder how many children are in apartments where they have locked the door and can't take any phone calls and can't go outside to play, even when it is a beautiful day. I think we do need to know how the children are faring and what is going on. Again, this is a matter of doing some good policy evaluation. Finally, for those States that have adopted the family violence option, which we were able to do with the help of my wife Sheila and Senator Patty Murray, we want to know how well they are doing in providing the services for victims of domestic violence. This is important. The family violence option essentially said we are not saying these mothers should be exempt. What we are saying is there should be an opportunity for States to be able to say to the Federal Government--it would be up to States, and they would not be penalized for that--look, this woman has been battered and beaten over and over again and we are not going to get her to work as quickly as we are other mothers; there are additional support services she needs. When she goes to work, this guy is there threatening her. Because of these kinds of circumstances, please give us more flexibility. We want to find out how these States are dealing with that. Otherwise, what happens is if you don't have that kind of flexibility, then a mother finds herself sanctioned if she doesn't take the job; but she can't really take the job and, therefore, the only thing she ends up doing is going back into a very dangerous home. She has left, she has tried to get away, and she is trying to be safe. If you cut off her assistance, then she has no other choice but to go back into a very dangerous home. That should not happen in America. By the way, colleagues, I know it is an incredible statistic, but October is the month we focus on violence in homes. I wish it didn't happen. About the most conservative statistic is that every 13 seconds a woman is battered in her home in our country. I can't even grasp the meaning of that. A home should be a safe place. As I have said before--and I hope my colleagues, Senator Hollings and Senator Judd Gregg, will help me keep this in conference committee-- about 5 million children see this violence. So we talk about the fact children should not see the violence in movies and on television. A lot of them see the violence right in their homes. It has a devastating impact on their own lives. We need to make sure these kids don't fall between the cracks and that we provide some services. I am going to start out in a moment with some examples. I am talking about nothing more than good policy evaluation. Let me wear my teacher hat. All I am saying--and we can disagree or agree about the bill, on should we have passed it or not, and some things are working well but some have questions; I have questions--let's at least do some good thorough policy evaluation. We are saying that the States just merge their tapes --they have the data--and present it to Health and Human Services. We have a report. We know what is going on in these areas. This is a sense-of-the-Senate amendment because, otherwise, I would have been subject to a rule XVI point of order. I hoped I would not have had to do a sense of the Senate because, under normal circumstances, we would have had the House bill over here. If the House bill had been over here, then I could have introduced this amendment, and I would not have been subject to any rule XVI challenge. Since that has not happened, what I am doing is bringing this amendment out, getting, I hope, a good, strong vote, and if the House does, in fact, move forward with some work and gets the Labor-Health and Human Services Appropriation bill passed, then I will bring this amendment back as a regular amendment. I say to colleagues, all the time I spend today will have been well spent, and we can have 5 minutes of debate and then vote on it. In a way, I am trying to move us forward in an expeditious manner. When we are talking about families that are worried about whether they can put food on the table or worried about whether they can pay the rent at the end of the month, I don't think they much care whether or not my amendment is subject to rule XVI; I don't think they much care whether or not this is an amendment on an appropriations bill; I don't think they much care about why the House hasn't sent an appropriations bill over to the Senate. What they care about are more pressing issues. What I am concerned about is that there is, indeed, a segment of our population who are very poor, the majority of whom are children, who are, indeed, falling between the cracks. Let me also say at the very beginning that I think this is the question: Since the welfare bill passed, we have reduced the rolls by about 4.5 million people, the majority of them children. That has been about a 50-percent reduction in the welfare population. The question is whether or not the reduction of the welfare rolls has led to a reduction of poverty because the goal of the legislation was to move these families to some kind of economic self-sufficiency and certainly not to put them in a more precarious situation. I think we ought to have the data. I think we ought to do the policy evaluation. I have said it before on the floor of the Senate, and I think it is worth saying again: One of my favorite sociologists, Gunnar Myrdal, a Swedish sociologist, once said, ``Ignorance is never random; sometimes we don't know what we don't want to know.'' I think we ought not to be ignorant about this. We ought to have the data. My appeal is to do the policy evaluation. This amendment will not cost additional money. It can be absorbed into the existing amount of money, according to CBO. There is no reason why we should not want to know--especially since, in many States, the drop-dead date certain is approaching where everyone will have used up the number of years they can receive an AFDC benefit and will be cut off assistance. Before we do that with the rest of the population, let's at least have some kind of policy evaluation. Let's understand what is happening to these families. By the way, I think among those families that are still on welfare, we are talking about a fair number of children who had children and who need, therefore, to get a high school diploma or are in need of job training. We are talking about single parents with severely disabled children. We are talking about a fair number of single parents who are women who struggle with substance abuse. I am being blunt about it. This is an issue I know well from work I have done all of my adult life in local communities. We are talking about women who have been victims of domestic violence. We need to be careful about what we are doing. Sometimes we forget it, but this is about the lives of people in the country and, in particular, poor women and children. I think we ought to have an honest policy evaluation. I want to put this in a very personal context now. Before I do this, I wish to start out with some art work that will speak to this part of my presentation. We had a group of high school students from Minneapolis here--it was incredible--who were working with the Harriet Tubman Center, which is a very special shelter. These high school kids--I think 300 or 400 of them submitted their art, and these 11 or 12 students were the ones who had the best art, but all of it was exceptional--came to Washington, DC, 2 days ago. This display is now in the Russell Building Rotunda for a week. Every year, for the last 6 or 7 years, Sheila and I have brought different works from around the country--sometimes from Minnesota and sometimes from other States--to the Nation's Capitol. I want to show a little bit of these students' work. So often the focus on students is so negative. These are inner-city high school students. It was a wonderful diversity, with all sorts of nationalities, cultures, histories, different colors, a great group of students. I was so pleased they came to Washington. This work I think speaks for itself. I will read from the top: Is a corner in your home the only place your child felt safe today? Why is it always my fault? Stop it. Speak up. Seeing or hearing violence among family members hurts children in many ways. They do not have to be hit to feel the pain of violence. I am going to hold this up for a moment so it can be seen by people who are watching this presentation. My colleagues can see this in the Russell Rotunda. Next picture. I will hold it up. It says: In the time it takes you to tie your shoe, a woman is beaten. . ..Go ahead, now tie your other one! Speak up! Domestic violence causes almost 100,000 days of hospitalization, 30,000 emergency room visits, and 40,000 trips to the doctor every single year. I will just hold this up for a moment so it can be seen. This is pretty marvelous work. This is art from the heart. This is art from the heart of high school students. I say that to the pages; they are high school students. The next work: If we hear the violence and see the violence, why is it so hard to speak of the violence? Is being a passer-by keeping a secret? ``Speak up.'' Ninety-two percent of women who are physically abused by their partners do not discuss these incidents with a physician. Fifty-seven percent do not discuss the incidents with anyone. Finally, this is really powerful. I will show it this way, too. So . . . how do your kids behave on a date? Love isn't supposed to hurt. Two high school kids. On average, 100 out of 300 school students are or have been in an abusive dating relationship. Only 4 out of 10 of these relationships end when the violence and abuse begin. One out of three high school students is or has been in an abusive dating relationship. I say to my colleague from Nevada this is marvelous artwork done by high school students in inner-city Minneapolis. Twelve of them came to Washington, DC. I thank my colleague, Senator Reid from Nevada, for having the courtesy and graciousness to acknowledge this work. I want to tell you about a conversation I had. Maureen, who works with Interchange Food Pantry in Milwaukee, WI, told me about a phone call she received on Monday of this week--Monday this week. On Monday, Maureen received a phone call. It was a woman who was well known at the food pantry, a woman who has a file about an inch and a half thick documenting the domestic violence she has endured at the hands of an abusive husband. Yesterday, this woman--we are talking about this week, right now. I want everyone to understand that this debate is about people's lives. Yesterday, this woman ran out of her home with her 3-year-old child in her arms, fleeing her abusive husband. She went to school, and she picked up her three other young children. She went to a laundromat. She called Maureen. She was looking for help, and she didn't know where else to turn. The people at the food pantry tried to place this woman in a domestic violence shelter. But homelessness right now seems to have reached epidemic proportions in Milwaukee. So many women are becoming homeless that all of the battered women's shelters are full to overflowing, and desperate women are presenting themselves as victims of domestic violence so they can be placed in shelters. The shelters don't have any room because there are so many homeless women and children. Some of these women are basically pretending as if they are victims. Plenty of them are. Because they are so battered, they try to find shelter. What this means is there is no place left to go for homeless women and women who are victims of domestic violence. She couldn't find a shelter at this food pantry. They could find no shelter to place this woman. On the phone, they couldn't find anything for her. This is 1999 in America. The economy is booming. We don't have this kind of discussion on the floor of the Senate enough. All that food pantry was able to do was to give her some food vouchers and a bus ticket so they could go spend the night with her mother. But her mother lives in senior housing. She is not supposed to have overnight guests, and she could actually end up losing her house if they get caught. So this woman, who has a 15-year history of abuse, is going to have to return to her home. That is where she is going. She will have to go back to this abusive, violent, dangerous situation for herself and for her children because she lacks the economic independence to do anything else. No one should be forced to risk their life or the lives of their children because they are poor. This woman's story is a welfare nightmare. She is doing all she can. Her children are clean, and they are well cared for. But she is not making it economically. Her husband isn't willing to work. Therefore, the family has been sanctioned by the welfare department on and off. She has been forced to rely on the food pantry for help. So she sells her plasma as often as possible--about three times a week. She doesn't have a high school degree. But the welfare agency, instead of making sure she gets her GED and the training she needs to get some kind of a living-wage job, has put her into a training program so she can become a housekeeper in a hotel. Their idea of getting this woman to a life of economic independence is to place her as a housekeeper in a hotel. She has been in an abusive, dangerous situation for 15 years. Her caseworker is aware of her situation. But there is no help. There is no effort to make her economically independent so she can leave the marriage, and she is now being forced back into this home. She does not have the economic wherewithal to leave her home. This woman has tried. She went to the welfare office. She asked to be placed in a job. They put her to work in a light manufacturing job, a job for which she had no training whatsoever. Making the situation even worse, they placed her in a job that was way out in the suburbs with a 45-minute commute each way on a bus. Listen to this. This is why I think we need to know what is going on in the country. She had to get up at 4:30 in the morning, drop her kid off at child care--child care is hard to find at 4:30 in the morning-- travel to her job, put in a full day's work, and ride all the way home, pick up her kids, and go back home to face her abusive husband. When she went to the welfare worker and explained the situation, she was told that if she quit this job, she would be sanctioned and she would lose her benefits. This woman's life and the lives of her children are not going to get better until she can get out of her situation. But under the current welfare program--at least the way it is working in one State, in one community--this isn't going to happen. Let me give a few examples from some of the studies that have been done. Then let me go into the overall debate. Applying for cash assistance has become difficult in many places. In one Alabama county, a professor found that intake workers gave public assistance applications to only 6 out of 27 undergraduate students who requested them despite State policy that says anyone who asks for an application should get one. This was from a Children's Defense Fund study. The study cited was by the professor who was doing fieldwork research on the application process in two Alabama counties. Before I actually give the examples, let me go to the debate. There are those who argue that we don't need to do any policy evaluation because we have cut the rolls in half. But the goal was never cutting the rolls in half. The goal was to reduce poverty. Let me cite some disturbing evidence: The reduction in the roles is not bringing a reduction in poverty. We want to know, what kind of jobs do the mothers have? What kind of wages? Are the families still receiving medical coverage? Is there affordable child care? Are children still participating in the Food Stamp Program? This is what we need to know. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I agree with the request and I am pleased to work within this framework. I have a judge I have to meet; he is going to be appearing before an important committee. I do not get done with that until a little bit after 2 o'clock. Could we say 2:15 instead of 1:50?

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I will figure out how to do it.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank my colleague from Georgia. Mr. President, since I had a chance to speak on this amendment, I can be brief and probably will not need to take anywhere near the full amount of time. Let me remind Senators what the vote on this amendment will be: To express the sense of the Senate regarding the importance of determining the economic status of former recipients of temporary assistance to needy families. I am hoping not one Senator votes against this. Again, the purpose of this amendment is to express the sense of the Senate that we want to know, what is the economic status of welfare mothers no longer on welfare? What is happening with this legislation? It is called policy evaluation. It is a sense of the Senate because otherwise I would be subject to rule XVI. If the House had done their work and had sent over the Labor, Health and Human Services appropriations bill, I could do this amendment and I wouldn't have to do a sense-of-the-Senate amendment. I certainly hope there is not a motion to table this. I can't imagine why it would be controversial. The Senate goes on record that we need to determine the economic status of these former recipients. We need to know how this legislation is working. We need to know whether or not these mothers, who have been sanctioned, actually have jobs. We need to know whether the jobs pay a living wage. We need to know whether these families have been cut off medical assistance when they are still eligible. We need to know whether or not families have been cut from food stamp assistance even when they are eligible, and we need to know what the child care situation is. We need to know the status of 2-year-olds and 3-year- olds. This sense-of-the-Senate amendment has the support of some 120 different organizations: from Catholic Charities USA; Center for Community Change; Food Research and Action Center; National Center on Poverty Law; National Coalition Against Domestic Violence; NETWORK, a National Catholic Social Justice Lobby; YWCA of America--the list goes on and on--Children's Defense Fund; Women for Reform Judaism. There is a long list of organizations to which I think all of us give some credibility as important justice organizations. Again, I had a chance to speak about this amendment earlier. I will just summarize. Yes, the welfare rolls have been reduced by about half. There are 4.5 million fewer Americans receiving any assistance. But the goal wasn't to basically reduce the welfare rolls; the goal was to reduce poverty. There are still some 34-, 35 million poor Americans. Unfortunately, some 6.5 million children live in households with incomes less than half of the official poverty level. Among one subgroup of our population, the poorest of poor people, poverty has gone up. Today, about 20 percent of all the children in our country and about a third of the children of color under the age of 6 are growing up poor. Still today the largest poverty-stricken group of Americans are children. Still today we have a set of social arrangements that allow children to be the most poverty-stricken group in our country. I cite as evidence, again, some disturbing studies. Families USA says we have about 670,000 fewer people who no longer receive medical coverage because of the welfare bill; 670,000 citizens no longer receiving any medical assistance because of the welfare bill. We have the U.S. Department of Agriculture telling us there has been about a 20- to 25- percent drop in food stamp participation, which has been the most important safety net program for children. In addition, we have any number of different studies--NETWORK, Catholic Justice Organization being but one--which point out that most of the jobs these mothers are getting pay about $7 an hour. But if they don't have any health care coverage, they are worse off. There are too many examples I can give. Again, I want to make sure we have the data about children, 2 and 3 years old, who are not receiving adequate child care. The question I am asking is embodied in the wording of this amendment: To express the sense of the Senate regarding the importance of determining the economic status of these former recipients. What has happened to these women and children? How are they doing? Is this welfare bill working? We should do some honest policy evaluation. Today, at about quarter to 2, we will have a vote on an amendment every Senator should support. How can a Senator argue that it isn't important to know the economic status of these women and children? I don't see the case against it. I hope we get a strong vote, and then that will give us some momentum for finally moving forward with some legislation that eventually will have some teeth that will, in fact, call for this kind of policy evaluation. I say to colleagues I could give many State-by-State examples of ways in which I don't think this is working quite the way we want it to. I won't. I could say to Democrats and Republicans that, in some cases, in some communities, there is success; in other cases, in other communities, what is going on it is rather brutal. I can certainly say to all of my colleagues, in very good faith, we need to understand the drop in food stamp participation; they are so important to meeting the nutritional needs of children. We need to understand why so many people have been dropped from medical assistance. We need to know whether there is decent child care for these children, and we need to know whether or not these families are moving toward economic independence. It is extremely important that we do this policy evaluation. That is all this amendment calls for. It is a sense-of-the-Senate amendment. It is to get Senators on record with a good, strong vote that we ``express the sense of the Senate regarding the importance of determining the economic status of former recipients of temporary assistance in needy families.'' Mr. President, I don't know that more needs to be said about this amendment. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I find this amendment to be very troubling, and I hope colleagues will support our effort to table it. This amendment plays off hard-working people who are trying to make a decent wage against people in communities that are faced with disaster. In 1999, so far, there have been 72 disaster declarations in 36 States, including Minnesota. The Smith amendment would suspend the Davis-Bacon application to all contracts in these areas for the entire year. I think what people in Minnesota and in our country are saying to us is, when there is a disaster in our community and we need the help, please help us. I think what people in Minnesota and in the country are saying to us is that the prevailing wage is important, a living wage is important, a family wage is important, so please don't go cutting our wages. There is absolutely no reason in the world to play off construction workers and the need to make a decent wage and support your family with whether or not we are going to be able to provide disaster relief to communities. This is a false choice. It is, in many ways, an outrageous choice. This amendment should be defeated.

Mr. WELLSTONE. If I may offer the second-degree amendment----

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 1880.

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

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I send a second-degree amendment to the desk.

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

Mr. WELLSTONE. That is true.

Mr. WELLSTONE. That is correct.

Mr. WELLSTONE. My colleague from Nevada is absolutely correct. That is why I had to respond to these comments by Governor Ventura from Minnesota. This is an illness. This is an illness that affects many Americans. This is an illness that has led to such pain for so many families. I mentioned Al and Mary Kluesner from Minnesota who started an organization. Sheila and I have been to their gatherings, I say to my colleague, for the last 3 years. Hundreds of people come, including parents who have lost their children to suicide. They do not need ridicule. We need to understand this is not a moral failing. This is an illness. Suicide is the result of this illness. With treatment, we can prevent these deaths.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I say to my colleague from Nevada, he is absolutely correct. The research over especially this last decade-- which has focused on brain diseases--over and over and over again points out that these diseases are comparable to physical illnesses. They are diagnosable and they are treatable, but the big challenge for us is to overcome the stigma, to overcome the discrimination. That is why I am so outraged by these remarks by Governor Ventura.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank my colleague. I point out to the Senator from Nevada, this is the fourth leading cause of death among children, ages 10 to 14, suicide, among white males. There are other populations as well. The rate of suicide among African American males, ages 15 to 19, has increased 105 percent between 1980 and 1996. Senator Specter and Senator Harkin have done a yeoman's job of getting more support for these mental health services. What I am trying to do is take this mental health performance partnership block grant program, which supports comprehensive community-based treatment for adults with serious mental illnesses and children with serious emotional disturbances, back to the level of funding the President requested. This is administered through the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, SAMHSA. I say to my colleague from Pennsylvania, if I could have 5 more minutes to summarize this, we want to go to a voice vote, and this amendment will be accepted. I will be honored. Let me simply talk about the services that are so important. This is funding for communities for programs that include treatment, rehabilitation, case management, outreach for homeless individuals, children's mental health services, and community-based treatment services that have everything in the world to do with providing treatment to people and enabling people to live lives with as much independence and dignity as possible. Right now the mental health block grant is funded at $310 million. That is a small amount compared to the tremendous need. This amendment would add $50 million. With this amendment, we could provide support for some important community services that would make a tremendous amount of difference. I went over some of the gaps earlier. My colleague from Pennsylvania, who is managing this bill on the Republican side, said there is an indication to accept this amendment. I will be very pleased. I know colleagues want to move this along. I say to my Republican colleagues and Democratic colleagues, I appreciate the support for this. I know Senator Specter is committed to this. I know Senator Harkin is as well. I would like to have this amendment approved. I would like to see the additional resources. This is an extremely important program. We have to do a lot better in this area. We can do it at the community level, but for those adults--and we are, in particular, talking about adults with serious mental illnesses and children with serious emotional disturbances--all too often, they wind up out on the streets or they wind up in prison or they wind up not receiving the care. So much of this illness is diagnosable. So much of it is treatable. There are so many ways we can help people. I think accepting this amendment and making sure we can keep this level of funding as we go to the conference committee would be extremely important. Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I yield back my time.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, the Parkinson's hearing was great news for all those who suffer from this disease. The advocacy community was well-represented by actor Michael J. Fox, Joan Samuelson--President of the Parkinson's Action Network, and Jim Cordy--a Parkinson's advocate from Pennsylvania. Their personal stories underscore the need for Congress to ensure that there is increased funding for Parkinson's research. Parkinson's is the most curable neurological disorder and the one most likely to produce a breakthrough. Congress passed the Morris K. Udall Research Act, making clear that Parkinson's should receive the funding it needs to eradicate this truly dreadful disease. Now it is time to fulfill that promise.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. I object.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, the government of Belarus has systematically intimidated and punished members of opposition political groups for several years now. Ordinary citizens--some as young as fifteen--have been beaten, arrested, and charged with absurd criminal offenses all because they dared to speak out against the President of Belarus, Alex Lukashenko, and his crushing of basic human rights and civil liberties there. Recently, however, events have grown worse. Four dissidents, closely watched by the government's omnipresent security police have vanished. The government says it has no clues as to why. Up until now, the President only beat and jailed his opponents. The President now appears to be behind a series of disappearances by key opposition figures since April, as reported in the New York Times. Last week, the State Department said that it was greatly concerned about the pattern of disappearances and urged the government of Belarus to find and protect those who had vanished. The disappearances coincide with the strongest campaign yet launched by Belarus's pro-democracy movement to press the government for reforms. The first person to disappear was the former chairwoman of the Central Bank (Tamara Vinnikova). She publicly supported the former prime minister, an opposition candidate, and was being held on trumped up charges under house arrest with an armed guard at the time she vanished. That she was held under house arrest, guarded at all times by live-in KGB agents, her telephone calls and visitors strictly screened, strongly suggests that her disappearance was orchestrated by the authorities. In May, Yuri Zakharenka, a former interior minister and an opposition activist, disappeared as he was walking home. He was last seen bundled into a car by a group of unidentified men. His wife said for two weeks prior to his abduction, he had complained of being tailed by two cars. At the height of protests in July, another opposition leader, speaker of the illegally disbanded parliament, fled to Lithuania, saying that he feared for his life. Then two weeks ago, Victor Gonchar, a leading political dissident, and his friend, a publisher, vanished on an evening outing, even though Mr. Gonchar was under constant surveillance by the security police. Gonchar's wife reportedly contacted city law enforcement agencies, local hospitals and morgues without result. The government maintains that it has no information on his whereabouts. Mr. Gonchar has been instrumental in selecting an opposition delegation to OSCE-mediated talks with the government, and was scheduled to meet with the U.S. ambassador to Belarus on September 20. Earlier this year, police violently assaulted and arrested him on charges of holding an illegal meeting in a private cafe, for which he served ten days in jail. Before President Lukashenko came to office in 1994, one could see improvements in the human rights situation in Belarus. Independent newspapers emerged, and ordinary citizens started openly expressing their views and ideas, opened associations and began to organize. The parliament became a forum for debate among parties with differing political agendas. The judiciary also began to operate more independently. After Mr. Lukashenko was elected president, he extended his term and replaced the elected Parliament with his own hand-picked legislators in a referendum in 1996, universally condemned as rigged. Since then, he has held fast to his goal of strengthening his dictatorship. He has ruthlessly sought to control and subordinate most aspects of public life, both in government and in society, cracking down on the media, political parties and grass roots movements. Under the new constitution, he overwhelming dominates other branches of government, including the parliament and judiciary. The first president of democratic Belarus, Stanislav Shushkevich, and now in the opposition, said recently that the government is resorting to state terrorism by abducting and silencing dissidents. He said, ``the regime has gone along the path of eliminating the leaders against whom it can't open even an artificial case. This is done with the goal of strengthening the dictatorship.'' I am deeply concerned that comments by senior government officials this past week which betray official indifference to those disappearances. I urge President Lukashenko to use all available means at his disposal to locate the four missing--and to ensure the safety and security of all living in Belarus, regardless of their political views. What is happening in Belarus now is an outrage. The world is watching what President Lukashenko does to address it. Mr. President, I want the Government of Belarus to know that their blatant violation of the human rights of citizens is unacceptable. The report several days ago of four prominent men and women who have had the courage to stand up against this very repressive Government of Belarus raises very serious questions. As a Senator, I want to speak from the floor and condemn that Government's repressive actions. I want to make it clear to the Government of Belarus that these actions, the repression and violation of citizens' rights in Belarus, is unacceptable, I think, to every single Senator. I think many of us in the human rights community are very worried about whether or not they are still alive. I would not want the Government of Belarus to think they can engage in this kind of repressive activity with impunity. That is why I speak about this on the floor of the Senate.

Mr. WELLSTONE

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

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I thought I would use this time, before we go forward in the Senate with some additional votes, to speak on two matters. I am actually waiting for a few visuals, or pictures, I want to show regarding what I am going to say. First of all, let me thank a pretty amazing group of young people from my State of Minnesota for coming all the way here to Washington, DC. These are high school students, and they have brought, if you will, art that is from the heart. It is an art display that will be on exhibit in the rotunda of the Russell Senate Office Building. This month of October is an awareness of domestic violence month. People in the country should understand, if they don't already, that about every 13 seconds, a woman is battered in her home--about every 13 seconds. A home should be a safe place for women and children. What these students have done is--and I first saw their display at the Harriet Tubman Center back home in Minnesota--they have presented some art that, as I say, is really from the heart. This artwork, in the most powerful way, deals with the devastating impact of violence in homes, not only on women and adults but on children as well. Quite often, we have debates out here on the floor of the Senate about the negative impact of television violence, or violence in movies, on children. The fact is that for too many children--maybe as many as 5 million children in our country--they don't need to turn on the TV or go to a movie to see the violence; they see the violence in their homes. We will have this really marvelous display of art by these students from Minnesota, and it will be in the Russell rotunda on display this week. Tonight, for other Senators, at 6:30, there will be a reception for these students. They should be honored for their fine work. Mr. President, I commend Mr. Dionne. His words speak eloquently to the emotions and feelings of many of us. Again, I respect the Governor of Minnesota in expressing his views, but we certainly have an obligation to express ours. E.J. Dionne has expressed them well with this Member of the Senate. I yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I wonder whether I could ask my colleague, how long will the debate be on the Robb amendment?