Paul Wellstone

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, today I would like to commend Melissa Brown, Kaitie Cochrane, and Lindsay Jans for their hard work, dedication, and creativity in the study of history. They have earned the admiration of their families, their community, their teacher, Huy Nguyen, and their school, Sunrise Park Middle School. These students have been selected by the National History Day program to present their performance, ``Separate But Not Equal,'' at the National Museum of American History on June 12, 2002. To be ranked by the National History Day program among the 2000 students chosen to join the national competition is an impressive honor, and to be one of only 17 groups selected from over half a million participants to present at the National Museum of American History is an incredible achievement indeed. The National History Day Contest is the Nation's oldest and one of the most highly regarded humanities contests for students in middle and high school. The experience that Kaitie, Lindsay, and Melissa have gained through their NHD project using primary resources and participating in hands-on activities will last them for the rest of their lives. The more than 9 million students who have participated in the NHD program have gone on to careers in business, law, medicine, teaching, and countless other disciplines in which they are putting into practice the thinking and investigative approach fostered through the National History Day program. I want to thank these students for representing Minnesota along with only thirteen other States at the National Museum of American History today. The kind of leadership and perseverance Lindsay, Melissa, and Kaitie have exhibited will carry the theme of this year's National History Day Contest, ``Revolution, Reaction, and Reform in History,'' into the next generation. I wish them the best of luck both in the upcoming competition and in their future endeavors. I thank them for their hard work and their commitment to learning and sharing their knowledge with other students from across the country.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I rise today along with my colleague, the Senator from Alaska, to introduce the Rural Community Hospital Assistance Act. Senator Murkowski and I don't agree on a lot of issues. But one thing we both care very deeply about is the health of this Nation's rural hospitals. Rural hospitals provide essential care for more than 54 million people. They provide essential inpatient, outpatient and post-acute care, including skilled nursing, home health and rehabilitation services. Minnesota has more rural hospitals than any other state in the United States with the exception of Texas. The hospitals of rural America are the heart of our health care system. In rural America, how far away you are from your community hospital can be a matter of life and death. But the health of our rural hospitals in 2002 is not good. Many are struggling to survive. Rural hospitals have Medicare inpatient margins that are 10 percent less than urban hospitals. Rural hospital total Medicare margins have declined significantly, falling to an average of negative 3.2 percent since 1999, and even lower margins, negative 5.4 percent, for rural hospitals with 50 or fewer beds. Rural hospital costs are increasing at a greater rate than urban hospitals. They can't survive on the Medicare prospective payment system that we've set up for them. That payment system provides a fixed hospital payment established in advance of the provisions of services, rather than providing reimbursement retroactively on the basis of costs. The Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC) told the Congress last June that the Prospective Payment System is not working for small rural hospitals. We set up that system to contain costs and save money. But we can't have the kind of healthcare system that the people who live in the small towns and on the farms of America deserve, if we try to finance it on the cheap. This is about values. This is about priorities. This is about giving people who work hard all their lives the healthcare they deserve. I voted against the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 because I was worried that it would lead to significant harm for our healthcare system. I was worried that it would hurt healthcare in our rural areas, in our cities, and that it would damage our healthcare safety net. Unfortunately, I was right and we have seen exactly the kind of problems I warned about. But one good thing we included was the Medicare Rural Hospital Flexibility Act which set up ``Critical Access Hospitals.'' The Critical Access Hospital (CAH) program provides cost based Medicare reimbursement for qualifying rural hospitals with 15 of fewer inpatient beds. Small rural hospitals face unique circumstances that require special consideration when developing Medicare payment policies. Because of their small size, a median of 58 beds compared to 186 beds for urban hospitals, rural hospitals have a much more difficult time surviving within a prospective payment system. Rural hospitals have fewer financial reserves and greater volume fluctuations than urban hospitals. They rely on Medicare as a source of revenue more than other hospitals. They have to deal with isolation, high levels of poverty, and shortages of critical health care professionals, making it much more difficult for small rural hospitals to absorb the impact of policy and market changes. The Critical Access Hospital Program has done a good job. There are 43 Critical Access Hospitals in Minnesota. But this program needs to be updated and it needs to be extended and enhanced if we are going to restore our rural hospitals to financial health. The Rural Community Hospital Assistance Act will provide enhanced cost based reimbursement for Critical Access Hospitals, and extend such reimbursement to post acute care services. It will permit and extend enhanced reimbursement fore geriatric psychiatric care. It will provide enhanced cost based reimbursement for ambulance services. It would also provide an option for rural hospitals with less than 50 acute care beds to receive cost based reimbursement for inpatient, outpatient, and ambulance services. This is very important because so many rural hospitals with less than 50 beds are struggling just to survive. It is essential that the doors of our rural hospitals remain open. I ask my colleagues to join Senator Murkowski and me in supporting this important legislation for rural America.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I rise today along with my colleague, the Senator from Alaska, to introduce the Rural Community Hospital Assistance Act. Senator Murkowski and I don't agree on a lot of issues. But one thing we both care very deeply about is the health of this Nation's rural hospitals. Rural hospitals provide essential care for more than 54 million people. They provide essential inpatient, outpatient and post-acute care, including skilled nursing, home health and rehabilitation services. Minnesota has more rural hospitals than any other state in the United States with the exception of Texas. The hospitals of rural America are the heart of our health care system. In rural America, how far away you are from your community hospital can be a matter of life and death. But the health of our rural hospitals in 2002 is not good. Many are struggling to survive. Rural hospitals have Medicare inpatient margins that are 10 percent less than urban hospitals. Rural hospital total Medicare margins have declined significantly, falling to an average of negative 3.2 percent since 1999, and even lower margins, negative 5.4 percent, for rural hospitals with 50 or fewer beds. Rural hospital costs are increasing at a greater rate than urban hospitals. They can't survive on the Medicare prospective payment system that we've set up for them. That payment system provides a fixed hospital payment established in advance of the provisions of services, rather than providing reimbursement retroactively on the basis of costs. The Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC) told the Congress last June that the Prospective Payment System is not working for small rural hospitals. We set up that system to contain costs and save money. But we can't have the kind of healthcare system that the people who live in the small towns and on the farms of America deserve, if we try to finance it on the cheap. This is about values. This is about priorities. This is about giving people who work hard all their lives the healthcare they deserve. I voted against the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 because I was worried that it would lead to significant harm for our healthcare system. I was worried that it would hurt healthcare in our rural areas, in our cities, and that it would damage our healthcare safety net. Unfortunately, I was right and we have seen exactly the kind of problems I warned about. But one good thing we included was the Medicare Rural Hospital Flexibility Act which set up ``Critical Access Hospitals.'' The Critical Access Hospital (CAH) program provides cost based Medicare reimbursement for qualifying rural hospitals with 15 of fewer inpatient beds. Small rural hospitals face unique circumstances that require special consideration when developing Medicare payment policies. Because of their small size, a median of 58 beds compared to 186 beds for urban hospitals, rural hospitals have a much more difficult time surviving within a prospective payment system. Rural hospitals have fewer financial reserves and greater volume fluctuations than urban hospitals. They rely on Medicare as a source of revenue more than other hospitals. They have to deal with isolation, high levels of poverty, and shortages of critical health care professionals, making it much more difficult for small rural hospitals to absorb the impact of policy and market changes. The Critical Access Hospital Program has done a good job. There are 43 Critical Access Hospitals in Minnesota. But this program needs to be updated and it needs to be extended and enhanced if we are going to restore our rural hospitals to financial health. The Rural Community Hospital Assistance Act will provide enhanced cost based reimbursement for Critical Access Hospitals, and extend such reimbursement to post acute care services. It will permit and extend enhanced reimbursement fore geriatric psychiatric care. It will provide enhanced cost based reimbursement for ambulance services. It would also provide an option for rural hospitals with less than 50 acute care beds to receive cost based reimbursement for inpatient, outpatient, and ambulance services. This is very important because so many rural hospitals with less than 50 beds are struggling just to survive. It is essential that the doors of our rural hospitals remain open. I ask my colleagues to join Senator Murkowski and me in supporting this important legislation for rural America.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. I say to my colleague, Senator Conrad was going to yield me 10 minutes.

Mr. WELLSTONE. If my colleague would be willing to do so, that would help me.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Ten minutes. I will take more time tomorrow.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I strongly oppose the full repeal of the estate tax for multimillionaires and billionaires. It is unfair, and it is unaffordable. Let's repeal it for small businesses. Let's repeal it for family farmers. We all agree on that. Let's go with the Conrad formula of $3 million individual, $6 million a couple, up to $7 million, but let's retain some modicum of fiscal sanity before we give away nearly $1 trillion in tax cuts to a handful of the ultrarich. That is what this is. The timing could not be more ironic. We now immediately follow a vote to increase the Federal debt limit by $450 billion. That was to borrow another $450 billion, which is only enough credit to last until next March. Many of my colleagues voted for the tax cuts last year but they opposed increasing the debt limit; that is to say, in the words of the old Yiddish proverb, dancing at two weddings at the same time, although I don't think you should be able to do so. It is now clear that the claims that have been made by the White House, by the President, and by too many Senators and Representatives, that we can have massive tax cuts for the wealthy--Robin Hood in reverse--with most of the breaks going to the top 1 percent, pay down the debt, and invest in critical public priorities, were completely false. Of course, there is plenty of that to go around. Colleagues were out here advocating nearly a $1 trillion tax cut for billionaires less than a week after there was so much heartburn on the Senate floor over an extra $1 billion for homeland security. Where did the fiscal conservatives go? They will spend $1 trillion to protect some wealthy kid's inheritance, but they will not spend $1 billion to protect our cities and towns from terrorists. Spend $1 trillion to protect some wealthy kid's inheritance but not $400 million for veterans' health care, with so many veterans falling between the cracks. Give away almost $1 trillion over the next 20 years, erode the revenue base--it is fine to do it for billionaires and multimillionaires, but we don't have enough money for education, not for smaller class size, not to recruit and retain good teachers, not to have good, affordable prescription drugs, not to do something about deplorable conditions in nursing homes, not to help elderly people stay at home, live at home in as near normal circumstances as possible with dignity, not to expand health care coverage. We will not have any of the money to do that. Full repeal of the estate tax would cost $104 billion over the next 10 years, literally to protect a few thousand ultrawealthy families. Even worse, from 2013 to 2020 it is going to cost the taxpayers over $800 billion to provide this ``relief.'' This means that the full cost of this effort to have full repeal of the estate tax over 20 years is nearly $1 trillion. Nationally, only 1.6 percent of all estates were made up with significant small business assets and only 1.4 percent had significant farm assets. This means that virtually all the estate tax is paid by extremely wealthy people who do not own farms or small businesses. The Conrad amendment really targets this. In contrast, many rely on Social Security. Over 740,000 Minnesotans currently receive Social Security. Make no bones about it, what we are going to be doing here is not only not providing the investment in education or health care or affordable housing, but in addition we are just going to basically be taking it out of the Social Security trust fund. That is what this is all about. For helping multibillionaires and billionaires, refusing to target this--which is what the Conrad amendment does--refusing to exclude small businesses and family farms that are handed from family to family--which is exactly what the Dorgan amendment does--instead, we have this effort to erode the revenue base $1 trillion over 20 years, most of the benefits going to the wealthiest Americans. And at the same time, we will not even be able to live up to our commitment in Social Security. I believe this is really a proposal which defies common sense. If we want to do it the right way, we cap the estate tax exemption at a reasonable level. That is what the Conrad amendment does. If we want to do it the right way, we exempt, as I said before, family farms and family-owned businesses. If we want to do it the right way, we will have some balance. I finish on this note. I do not fault my colleagues because I think for many of them, this is their position. If you believe that when it comes to the most pressing issues of people's lives--be it to make sure Social Security benefits are there, to make sure we adequately fund Medicare reimbursement for our hospitals and nursing homes and home health care providers, to make sure people can afford prescription drugs, to make sure we live up to our commitment to get the dollars back to our schools and our school districts, our teachers, our children, our young people from prekindergarten through higher education, to make sure something is done about the lack of affordable housing, to make sure we can provide some help for people who have no health care coverage, to make sure we can provide some help for small businesses that can't afford health care costs--if you believe, when it comes to those pressing issues, there is nothing the Government can or should do--and I believe that in some ways that is the ideological position some of my colleagues take--then eliminating the estate tax, not targeting it, is the perfect way to go. It is win-win. You help the millionaires and the multimillionaires and the billionaires, you erode the revenue base, and you make it impossible for the Senate and the House of Representatives and the Federal Government to play a positive role in helping people. You make it impossible for the Federal Government to play a positive role in dealing with some of the most pressing issues of the lives of people we represent. That is what this estate tax cut does. That is what this proposal to completely eliminate the estate tax accomplishes. In one broad stroke of public policy, you have Robin Hood in extreme reverse with the benefits going to the wealthiest Americans, and at the same time you make it impossible for us to make the investments in health care, in education, in affordable housing, in Social Security, and in Medicare. From the point of view of some of my colleagues, it is win-win. From my point of view, it is lose-lose. I hope our colleagues will support the Conrad amendment as at least a commonsense, reasonable alternative. I am not sure my colleague from Texas fully agrees with my statement, but I appreciate his graciousness.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Senator. Mr. President, I disagree with my colleague, the minority leader. It is always an emergency when brutal crimes are committed against people because of their sexual orientation or gender or because of disability. I think it is an emergency for our country when someone such as Matthew Shepard is brutally murdered. I think it is an emergency for our country when what we say to people is not just that they are a victim or that we dehumanize people but, rather, we say to many citizens in our country, by gender or sexual orientation, because they are a gay or because they are a lesbian, they are next. Hate crimes violate not only our Constitution but they destroy our oneness as a people. They diminish us as a country. They take away from what is best in our Nation. I insist, as a Senator from Minnesota, that this is an emergency and that we should pass this legislation and that this legislation must not be blocked. If it were your loved one who had been murdered, if it were your loved one who were a target of these hate crimes, you would consider it an emergency and you would want us to pass this very important legislation. I urge my colleagues to vote for cloture.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Chance to Succeed Act of 2002 on behalf of myself and my colleagues Senator Corzine. The research is clear that many of the parents still receiving Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, TANF, cash assistance have barriers, often multiple barriers, that make it harder, sometime impossible, for them to work. These barriers include mental and physical impairments including learning disabilities, domestic and sexual violence, substance abuse, limited English proficiency, and hopelessness. In some cases, parents are caring for a child with disabilities and this inhibits their ability to meet the State's work requirements. In my own State of Minnesota, we are beginning to see compelling evidence that many families receiving TANF, have significant barriers to employment. A recent study done by Lifetrack Resources looked at welfare recipients participating in a transitional jobs program. This research found that individuals participating in the program had an average of seven barriers to employment, ranging from a lack of reliable transportation to limited education to domestic violence issues. Welfare offices in Ramsey and Hennepin Counties, where the bulk of families approaching their 5 year lifetime limit live, found similar results as they have begun testing TANF recipients for learning problems, mental illness, physical limitations and other disabilities. They found that: about two-thirds of the parents in each county have problems severe enough to qualify for benefits extension; In Ramsey county, testers who have worked with several hundred parents, have found the average IQ for English speakers was 82. An IQ of 100 is considered average; and Hennepin County found that 24 percent of a sample of 66 parents reaching their time limits had a mental illness. With additional help, many of these families in Minnesota and elsewhere, will be better able to maximize their potential and move toward greater financial independence. In order to be able to better help these families address such barriers and move toward work, States need to have in place policies and procedures that help identify these families and the barriers they face and provide them with the services and supports they will need to eventually succeed in the workplace. There is no need for these policies and procedures to be identical--one size does not fit all for states or families. But, the failure to have any such procedures results in families with barriers being inappropriately sanctioned while also unable to work. It also means that States are not using their limited TANF resources most efficiently to ensure accurate matching of families' barriers with program to help to address those barriers. Inadequate screening and assessment impedes states' ability to better tailor their programs and the individual's responsibility plan to meet a family's needs. Some States have already taken steps along the lines proposed in this bill. The purpose of the provisions in this bill is to put into place a skeletal structure in each State, leaving the States with flexibility in terms of exactly how the various provisions are implemented, will help to ensure that both states and families have the tools they need to ultimately ensure that more low-income families succeed in the workplace. The Chance to Succeed Act encourages states to better serve the needs of TANF recipients with barriers to employment by: giving states broad flexibility to place TANF recipients in barrier-removal activities and count recipients participating in such activities toward federal work participation rates for at least three months; improving service delivery for families with barriers by developing a screening, assessment and service delivery process; providing technical assistance to states to develop model practices, standards and procedures for screening, assessment and addressing barriers to move individuals into employment; and providing funding for state-level advisory panels to improve state policies and procedures for assisting families with barriers to work; helping TANF recipients with barriers to employment move into the workforce by creating personal responsibility plans that outline an employment goal for moving an individual into stable employment; the obligations of the individual to work toward becoming and remaining employed in the private sector; the individual's long- term career goals and the specific work experience, education, or training needed to reach them; and the services the State will offer based on screening and assessment; and developing sanction, conciliation and follow-up procedures that address barriers and improve compliance. TANF recipients want to work and be able to provide for themselves and their children. To be poor in this country is difficult enough, but to be poor and on welfare carries with it a stigma that makes life nearly impossible. States like Minnesota and others are only now coming to understand the true depth and extent of the kinds of barriers to employment that many TANF recipients face. It takes a tremendous commitment of effort and resources to provide individuals with the services and supports they need to address these barriers so that they may successfully transition into the workforce. It is critical that our federal TANF policies do all that is possible to help those states that are already making this kind of commitment. I believe this bill does just that, and I urge each of my colleagues to support it. I look forward to working with my colleagues on the Finance Committee and others to ensure that the provisions in this bill are included in the Senate TANF reauthorization bill.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Chance to Succeed Act of 2002 on behalf of myself and my colleagues Senator Corzine. The research is clear that many of the parents still receiving Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, TANF, cash assistance have barriers, often multiple barriers, that make it harder, sometime impossible, for them to work. These barriers include mental and physical impairments including learning disabilities, domestic and sexual violence, substance abuse, limited English proficiency, and hopelessness. In some cases, parents are caring for a child with disabilities and this inhibits their ability to meet the State's work requirements. In my own State of Minnesota, we are beginning to see compelling evidence that many families receiving TANF, have significant barriers to employment. A recent study done by Lifetrack Resources looked at welfare recipients participating in a transitional jobs program. This research found that individuals participating in the program had an average of seven barriers to employment, ranging from a lack of reliable transportation to limited education to domestic violence issues. Welfare offices in Ramsey and Hennepin Counties, where the bulk of families approaching their 5 year lifetime limit live, found similar results as they have begun testing TANF recipients for learning problems, mental illness, physical limitations and other disabilities. They found that: about two-thirds of the parents in each county have problems severe enough to qualify for benefits extension; In Ramsey county, testers who have worked with several hundred parents, have found the average IQ for English speakers was 82. An IQ of 100 is considered average; and Hennepin County found that 24 percent of a sample of 66 parents reaching their time limits had a mental illness. With additional help, many of these families in Minnesota and elsewhere, will be better able to maximize their potential and move toward greater financial independence. In order to be able to better help these families address such barriers and move toward work, States need to have in place policies and procedures that help identify these families and the barriers they face and provide them with the services and supports they will need to eventually succeed in the workplace. There is no need for these policies and procedures to be identical--one size does not fit all for states or families. But, the failure to have any such procedures results in families with barriers being inappropriately sanctioned while also unable to work. It also means that States are not using their limited TANF resources most efficiently to ensure accurate matching of families' barriers with program to help to address those barriers. Inadequate screening and assessment impedes states' ability to better tailor their programs and the individual's responsibility plan to meet a family's needs. Some States have already taken steps along the lines proposed in this bill. The purpose of the provisions in this bill is to put into place a skeletal structure in each State, leaving the States with flexibility in terms of exactly how the various provisions are implemented, will help to ensure that both states and families have the tools they need to ultimately ensure that more low-income families succeed in the workplace. The Chance to Succeed Act encourages states to better serve the needs of TANF recipients with barriers to employment by: giving states broad flexibility to place TANF recipients in barrier-removal activities and count recipients participating in such activities toward federal work participation rates for at least three months; improving service delivery for families with barriers by developing a screening, assessment and service delivery process; providing technical assistance to states to develop model practices, standards and procedures for screening, assessment and addressing barriers to move individuals into employment; and providing funding for state-level advisory panels to improve state policies and procedures for assisting families with barriers to work; helping TANF recipients with barriers to employment move into the workforce by creating personal responsibility plans that outline an employment goal for moving an individual into stable employment; the obligations of the individual to work toward becoming and remaining employed in the private sector; the individual's long- term career goals and the specific work experience, education, or training needed to reach them; and the services the State will offer based on screening and assessment; and developing sanction, conciliation and follow-up procedures that address barriers and improve compliance. TANF recipients want to work and be able to provide for themselves and their children. To be poor in this country is difficult enough, but to be poor and on welfare carries with it a stigma that makes life nearly impossible. States like Minnesota and others are only now coming to understand the true depth and extent of the kinds of barriers to employment that many TANF recipients face. It takes a tremendous commitment of effort and resources to provide individuals with the services and supports they need to address these barriers so that they may successfully transition into the workforce. It is critical that our federal TANF policies do all that is possible to help those states that are already making this kind of commitment. I believe this bill does just that, and I urge each of my colleagues to support it. I look forward to working with my colleagues on the Finance Committee and others to ensure that the provisions in this bill are included in the Senate TANF reauthorization bill.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. I ask unanimous consent that Nicolette Boehland be granted the privilege of the floor for the duration of the debate on S. 625.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. About 5 minutes.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank Senator Durbin for his amendment, and Senator Boxer and other supporters. I am a little confused by the remarks of my colleague from Tennessee. As I understand the Durbin amendment, this is $500 million that goes to the administration, which can then decide whether it wants to put it into this Global Fund or it wants to put it into other programs. That is up to the administration. We hope they will put it into the Global Fund because right now this Global Fund has a deficit of $3.5 billion. This is what I think is the issue for all Senators who are going to vote: I think the question is whether or not when we have a situation where today HIV/AIDS claims the lives of 8,000 people, today 13,000 people become newly infected with HIV, and my colleague is talking about an amendment that I am still not clear is $100 million or $200 million. The Durbin amendment, which I am proud to support, calls for $500 million. My God, given the magnitude of this crisis, given the magnitude of what all this means in personal terms--I keep hearing my colleague talk about mother to child transmission and the need to have prevention, yes, but there are also many people who need treatment. The Durbin amendment says tonight the Senate does something, that we live up to being our own best selves, that Democrats and Republicans no longer just give the speeches and no longer say we care so much, but we back up our rhetoric with the resources. In all due respect, the vote is simple. Do we believe, given this huge gap and how little we have contributed, that we ought to give this administration $500 million to work with so that our Government can play a much stronger and more positive role, or would we vote against this amendment, which means we are not providing anywhere near the resources? There will be another amendment later calling for much less, $100 million or $200 million, and then there is some discussion about how in the future there will be more. But we do not vote on the basis of the future. This is not an abstraction. There are a lot of people throughout the world who are suffering, a lot of people who are dying, and the Durbin amendment puts us on record that we, the Senate, tonight are going to make a significant commitment. I cannot believe that we would not get the vote for this amendment. It is time for all of us to sort of live the words we speak. That is what this amendment calls for us to do. One more time, this goes to the administration, giving it the flexibility. We certainly can talk about mother to child transmission, we also can talk about treatment, but the most of all is that finally the Senate goes on record with a real commitment of resources. That is the least we can do. So I speak for the Durbin amendment and hope it will get a strong vote. I yield the floor.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I would like at this time to engage in a colloquy with the chairman of the Agriculture Subcommittee on Appropriations, Senator Kohl, regarding the use of non-fat dry milk as a source of nutritional assistance to countries ravaged by the AIDS epidemic. It is widely understood that the AIDS pandemic is having a devastating impact on people the world over. Since the onset of the epidemic, 22 million people worldwide have died. An estimated three million people die from AIDS-related causes every year. Another 40 million people presently are living with HIV/AIDS, and although there are some signs that the incidence of HIV may be stabilizing in sub- Africa and elsewhere, the rate of infection remains alarmingly high. In fact, 95 percent of HIV/AIDS victims reside in developing nations--86 percent of the total live in sub-Saharan Africa. Children are at risk on an unparalleled scale, with HIV/AIDS dramatically increasing the number of infant and child deaths. Nearly 2.7 million children under the age of 15, and 11.8 million young people aged 15-24 are living with HIV/AIDS. More than 540,000 children were infected in mother-to-child transmission in 2000, and a baby born and nursed by an HIV-positive mother has a 25 to 35 percent chance of becoming infected. Further, most experts agree that nutrition is a co-fact in HIV progression: poor nutritional status and infection affect the immune system and interact with each other; and it helps protect against opportunistic infection and malignancies. Since the immune system requires protein to function properly, and protein needs increase during times of stress and infection, HIV-positive individuals should have two or more servings of low or non-fat milk or yogurt with active cultures. In addition, many believe that dairy products should accompany anti-retroviral drugs to boost the nutrition of HIV-positive mothers, increase the effectiveness of the drugs, and help mothers give birth to healthy children. I believe there is a opportunity to address this need within the Department of Agriculture in the form of non-fact dry milk currently in great surplus within USDA, the value of which is deteriorating as the cost of storage is increasing.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I believe that the Secretary of Agriculture, at this time, has the authority to dispose of dairy surpluses, such as the ones mentioned by my colleague, for direct feeding programs to mothers and children living with HIV/AIDS and communities heavily impacted by the HIV/AIDS pandemic. Therefore, I strongly believe that the Secretary of Agriculture should make available funds for the provision of 100,000 metric tons of surplus non-fat dry milk to combat HIV/AIDS, focusing especially on HIV/positive mothers and children. Careful consideration should be given to local market conditions, so as not to undermine the security and stability of the indigenous diary production and processing sectors of these communities, and no funds or commodities should be used in any programs that would substitute dairy products for breast feeding. We know that there is a dire need for nutritional assistance for families affected by HIV/AIDS. In addition, without action, this milk will remain in storage. It seems clear that we have been presented with a unique opportunity to do something positive in the world. I believe that to do nothing is not an option. We have the food and the technology. Now is the time for action.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. I would be pleased.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the whip. First, we know Senator Reid was not at the rally because of his duties in the Senate. Senator Reid from Nevada is a perfect example of someone who has taken his own life story in the most personal, powerful, and eloquent way and given a lot of other people inspiration. Thank you, thank you, thank you for your work. It was very moving. I don't know what the temperature is out there, but it feels like it is 120. It was on the west side of the Capitol. The estimates were 1,500 or 2,000 people in attendance. There were a lot of people there for well over an hour. A couple of things happened: First, this is a bill on the House side that now has 224 cosponsors. That is over a majority. That is enough to get a discharge petition. This is the work of Marge Roukema, Republican, and Patrick Kennedy, Democrat. On the Senate side, the bill has 66 cosponsors. In addition, there are 200 organizations that support it. In addition, the majority of the people are saying end the discrimination. That is what it was about. Do not tell someone whose daughter is struggling with depression, and they are worried she might take her life: You only can have a few days in the hospital and that is it. You can only see a doctor a few times and that is it. Treat the illness like an illness, like any other illness, like a physical illness. End the discrimination. It was very moving. People came to say end the discrimination. They came also to say it seems everyone is for it except the health insurance industry. Obviously, they are trying to block it. People are saying: We do not want to wait any longer. My hope is the White House will be very involved in the negotiations. The President has called for full mental health parity. That is very important. We need the help. Last time we passed it on the Senate side and put it in the appropriations bill of Labor, Health, and Human Services, it was blocked in conference. This time, my hope is that we will get a chance to bring it to the floor this month. We have more than enough support. The House must pass it. The White House will weigh in. It may not be 100-percent perfect, but what a difference it will make. Just to give some context, the people who came from all around the country, came to say the time is now. Just to give some context, I mentioned the New York Times, and the journalist should get a Pulitzer Prize for a three-part, front-page story. I could not bear to read it. It talked about adult care in New York City. Just imagine, in other States as well, people jumping out of windows because they do not get any care. They do not get pharmacological treatment--clients, men and women, adults in urine-stenched clothing day after day because of no adequate staffing; elderly people dying in the heat, in the United States of America, in the year 2002. We can do better. You asked me about the rally. Senator Domenici just came in, and it was really wonderful. Then we had a vote, so we had to leave. But Nancy Domenici was, what do you say, emceeing it? My own concern is that people drank enough water because it was so hot. But people are determined. People are determined to end the discrimination, to get this legislation passed. It was wonderful. I think it was really important. They are working very hard today as citizen lobbyists, talking to Members of the House, hoping we will move to this legislation. That is what it is all about. I see my colleague from New Mexico is here.

Mr. WELLSTONE

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

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I will not be able to fully detail some very good work that staff has done for me on this supplemental appropriations bill, but I want to speak about one part of this legislation that is of great concern to me. Overall, I absolutely support the supplemental, but I want to talk about some of the language and some of the additional funding for support for Colombia. First, I want to make it clear, having visited the country of Colombia twice now, I believe we have a very important role to play. I rise today to raise concerns about the administration's proposal for lifting the restrictions on aid to Colombia and providing an additional $35 million to help it fight terrorism. President Bush is seeking authority to permit U.S.-funded combat helicopters to be used directly against FARC and the ELN, the two biggest leftist insurgency groups. The administration claims that the best way to fight drugs in Colombia is to help the country end the threat from guerrillas. Violence, has wracked the Colombian countryside for more than 75 years, a product of poverty, inequality and the state's chronic weakness. The FARC's four-decade old insurgency, which grew out of an earlier civil war, has intensified dramatically since peace talks broke down in February, after several high-profile kidnappings. Narco- traffickers, working with left wing guerrillas and right wing paramilitaries, continue to make large portions of the country ungovernable. In short, Colombia's democracy is in crisis. Colombian civil society is under siege. Union members and activists, clergy, human rights defenders, journalists, and politicians continue to bear the brunt of human rights violations including murders, disappearances and threats in the escalating conflict in Colombia. Most Colombians living in rural areas unprotected by state forces are under constant threat by the left and right. While I believe we must help Colombia, I also believe that we must do so wisely. The Administration has requested $35 million for Colombia-- $25 million of which will be used to train and equip anti-kidnapping police units, $4 million to support police posts in areas out of government control, and $6 million to start training troops to protect an oil pipeline. This is on top of the nearly $2 billion we have already dedicated to Colombia in recent years. I have serious concerns about this proposal. Expanding our role in Colombia is a major change in U.S. policy. In my view, such a change deserves to be considered and debated on its own terms, not within the context of an emergency supplemental appropriations bill. I am concerned further that this shortsighted approach will only compound the already tragic toll on civilian life in Colombia. There are several serious problems with this approach, not least of which is the fact that the majority of U.S. assistance to Colombia goes to the Colombian armed forces, which continue to maintain ties to paramilitary groups that are listed on the State Department terrorist list. I cannot emphasize this point strongly enough. The administration is proposing to send hundreds of millions of dollars to a military force that has long, well-established ties to one of the very terrorist groups we purport to be fighting. Another immediate effect of the changes in policy would be to permit the United States to expand how it shares intelligence information with Colombian security forces. Again, I think we should be careful about providing intel to a Colombian military that is sullied by ties to right wing paramilitary terrorist organizations which are deeply involved in drug trafficking. I also am concerned that the Colombian military does not have the will to adequately protect its citizenry. For example, a May 2002 report prepared by the U.N. Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights in Colombia has placed equal blame on the FARC, the AUC, the government, and the military on fighting that left 119 civilians dead in the small town of Bojaya, in the remote jungles of northwest Colombia. The UN report says that the government, the police and the army not only ignored warnings of an impending tragedy but also may have collaborated with the outlawed paramilitary forces to allow them to enter the region. The report lays out evidence that a 250-person paramilitary unit sailed up the River Atrato in seven large boats and passed through two police and one army checkpoint without the slightest problem. Anders Kompass, director of the UN's Colombia office, said in his report that paramilitary commanders flew into the town aboard light aircraft at a time when the town was under full military control and only army aircraft were authorized to land on the small airstrip. Although this is just one of the most recent examples of Colombian military cooperation with the outlawed paramilitaries, it is emblematic of a broader pattern in Colombia. Military-paramilitary linkages in Colombia are real. It's high time we addressed this problem. Like Human Rights Watch, the Washington Office on Latin America (WOLA), and Amnesty International, I have serious concerns about the State Department's decision to certify the Colombian government's compliance with human rights. In my view, the Colombian government and military have shirked their responsibility to suspend high-ranking military officers implicated in serious human rights abuses. In addition, the Colombian government has failed to arrest known human rights violators, and when they have done so, have failed to vigorously prosecute these individuals. In particular, I am concerned about the characterization of army actions in Barrancabermeja as an example of progress in breaking army- paramilitary ties. Despite the high concentration of security forces in Barrancabermeja, the city remains under virtual paramilitary control. Paramilitaries move freely through the city, and the civilian population lives in an atmosphere of unmitigated terror. Surely this cannot be seen as progress. Over time, I think it's safe to say that we can expect requests by the Colombian government for additional substantial aid increases in the near future, perhaps as soon as next year. Now is the time to raise important questions about our end game. We must ask now, rather than a year or two from now: how far are we willing to go? We should not broaden our assistance until we get a satisfactory answer. As you know, the administration's Foreign Operations Appropriations request includes $98 million for FY2003 to train an additional brigade of Colombian troops to serve as a rapid- reaction force protecting the Cano-Limon pipeline used by the U.S. oil company, Occidental Petroleum, against guerrilla attack. U.S. Ambassador Anne Patterson told Colombia's El Tiempo newspaper that ``there are more than 300 infrastructure sites that are strategic for the United States in Colombia.'' Are we going to pay to protect all of these sites as well? Where do we draw the line? Why protect this pipeline and not another? Why not a dam, a coal mine, a power grid? We need to openly debate these questions before targeting assistance to one entity. I also am concerned that the Administration may appear to want to circumvent congressional authority. They have requested $6 million in this emergency supplemental for a program that Congress has not yet authorized. However, I am pleased to see that Senator Leahy has reduced the amount of funding for pipeline security to $3.5 million. He also has inserted language requiring Occidental and the other oil companies that would benefit from such protection to repay these funds. I applaud these efforts to check this glaring example of corporate welfare. This is not to say that the United States should not help strengthen Colombia's democracy. The United States can and should help Colombia. Here's what I believe we should be doing instead: Support the civilian part of Colombia's state--judges and prosecutors, oversight agencies, honest legislators, and reformist police officers; protect human rights and anti-corruption reformers inside and outside of government; provide and more effectively implement alternative development and rural development programs to create the conditions for a functioning legal economy and alleviate the desperation of Colombia's countryside, which fuels the conflict; step up our provision of humanitarian aid to internally displaced persons and refugees; use the full weight of our diplomacy to support efforts to restart peace talks, perhaps with UN involvement; press the Colombian military to break ties with the paramilitaries, without sending mixed signals--like waivers and disingenuous certification processes; and, spend more money at home on efforts to reduce demand through treatment and prevention. In Colombia, we should do all we can to strengthen the rule of law and democratic institutions. Economic and social development should be our highest priorities, and humanitarian delivery is essential. In addition, we need to invest in demand side interventions here in the U.S. Our militarized drug strategy overwhelmingly emphasizes drug eradication, interdiction and law enforcement when studies show that these are the least effective means of reducing illicit drug use. A landmark study of cocaine markets by the conservative RAND Corporation found that, dollar for dollar, providing treatment to addicts is 10 times more effective at reducing cocaine use than drug interdiction schemes and 23 times more cost effective than eradicating coca at its source. Our counter-narcotics policy in Colombia has not worked. Although some drug laboratories have been destroyed, coca production in Colombia has risen. In fact, despite massive fumigation across Colombia, the area of Colombia planted with coca grew by 24.7 percent in 2001 to 419,000 acres, 169,800 hectares. CIA figures for 2000 showed final cocaine output at 580 tons. What's more, just last month, General Gustavo Socha, the head of Colombia's anti-narcotics police force was removed from his post on Friday amid an inquiry into how some $2 million provided by the U.S. disappeared from an administrative police account. His removal--and subsequent resignation--are positive steps, but ultimately the perpetrators must be arrested and prosecuted prior to any new infusion of assistance money. Also, we do not know what the policies of any new Colombian administration will be. With the recent landslide victory of Alvaro Uribe in the Colombian Presidential elections, I think we have cause to be concerned. I hope Mr. Uribe will keep his campaign pledge to combat illegal right-wing paramilitary forces with as much vigor as he does the rebels, but I have cause for skepticism. I have serious concerns that Mr. Uribe's plans could lead to increased abuses that would mostly befall poor villagers who live in the areas where the fighting often takes place. Uribe, a 49-year-old former state governor, has promised to wage a war without quarter against both the FARC and the AUC. In my view, an escalated military approach is doomed to fail. He says he will double the size of the army's combat force to 100,000 soldiers and the National Police to 200,000, create commando teams to root the terrorists and drug traffickers out of Colombia's vast jungles, and recruit hundreds of thousands of civilians for security squads. As governor, paramilitary forces flourished in his department, and his chief election opponent has alleged paramilitary and narco-trafficker links. Uribe, whose campaign slogan is ``Firm Hand, Big Heart,'' has raised concerns among human rights groups, who fear his anti-guerrilla rhetoric might encourage right-wing paramilitaries. I share this concern. Most analysts agree that the military offensive proposed by President-elect Uribe will make things worse before they get better. It will most likely result in an increase of Colombian refugees and a rise in kidnappings, violence and drug production by FARC rebels in neighboring countries. The spillover effect of the war on neighboring countries could be compounded by the fact that the armed forces of Venezuela, Ecuador and Peru are consumed by internal troubles, Brazil is focused on its October presidential elections, and Panama does not even have an army. Again, I must ask: what are we trying to accomplish here? Between 1995 and 1998, when he was governor of the prosperous and tortured state of Antioquia, whose capital is Medellin, Mr. Uribe oversaw the creation of a network of civilian patrol groups. At least two of these groups evolved into notorious death squads, but Uribe insists that the others were merely efficient neighborhood peacekeepers. I believe that we should be wary of these civilian militias. Some see this as a new ``Self-Defense,'' or paramilitary, initiative. That said, with the exception of the civilian patrol groups that turned into death squads, and a military campaign against the guerrillas in the Uraba region of Antioquia, which is often described as brutal, Uribe's record as governor of Antioquia is outstanding, particularly in this chaotic nation. Public health, education, and highway systems, which are among Colombia's worst problems, improved greatly in Antioquia during his tenure. As a result, I hold out hope that he will advance a platform of economic, social, and cultural development all of which have been in short supply in Colombia. Ultimately, there is no military solution to this conflict. Most observers agree that a political solution is the only way out. Mr. Uribe has issued a call for the United Nations to attempt to restart peace talks with the rebels. In my view, our government should be more active in the quest for peace by encouraging negotiations like the sputtering ``Havana process'' of talks between the government and the ELN. This model could pave the way for eventual negotiations with the FARC. Moreover, we should encourage the Colombian government to accept a United Nations ``good offices'' mission, under Chapter 6 of the UN Charter, without preconditions. However, Mr. Uribe's ideas are unlikely to succeed despite his recent attempts to reach out to the UN. Before there can be any talks, he has demanded that both FARC and the AUC agree to an end to violence--an unlikely proposition. Yet I encourage his peace overtures and hope that he will agree that a military solution is not the most effective means for improving Colombia's plight. In conclusion, Mr. President, I am an internationalist. I am a first- generation American. I am interested in the world and I very much want to see us promoting sustainable economic development, promoting the environment, promoting human rights. I want to see good economic development assistance to Colombia. The truth is, I have some concerns about Mr. Uribe, who recently was elected President of Colombia. President Pastrana, I think, is a very honorable man, and I think had tremendous support in the Senate among Democrats and Republicans dealing with a tremendous amount of violence. The city I visited twice, Barrancabermeja, has been like the Sarajevo of Colombia, a very dangerous place, especially for the people who have to live there. In Colombia, there are a lot of innocent people who have been murdered by savage violence. There is the FARC, which is the guerrilla--if a label has to be used--left. There is the ELN, also the guerrilla left. Then there is the AUC, or the paramilitary, on the right. Certainly, the Government deserves and needs our assistance. My concern is about the direction we are taking in this supplemental bill. This is a supplemental appropriations bill, and I do not think we should be changing policy, but we are. The change in policy, as I understand it, is twofold. First, our military equipment, such as the Blackhawk helicopter, has been used in the war against drugs. That is what the original Plan Colombia was all about. Now this military assistance can be directly used in the counter insurgency war against the FARC and the ELN, no longer just for counter-narcotics. What worries me is the one-sidedness of the approach that the Government is taking, and I believe this new administration in Colombia will take. That is to say, if we are concerned about narco-trafficking, there are a couple of things we can and should do. The first thing we ought to do is to reduce the demand for the drugs in our country. That is actually the most effective way to deal with this. I am not sure anybody has proven that we can--through aerial eradication, the spraying and the military effort--actually successfully fight this scourge. The truth is, the drug trafficking business in Colombia continues to boom. Frankly, there is not anything we have done that has made much of a difference to date. The best thing we could do would be to reduce demand in our own country and have effective treatment programs in our own country. Above and beyond that, what has always worried me in what has been, up to now, counter-narcotics, is that all of the focus has been on the FARC and on the ELN, two organizations about which no one should have any illusions. These are not Robin Hood, justice organizations trying to redistribute the wealth and the income to the poor. These are organizations that are up to their eyeballs in narco- trafficking, having made a tremendous amount of money off of it. These are organizations that have been engaged in a clear policy of terrorism, that is, of kidnapping and murder of innocent people. The truth is that if this Plan Colombia was all about going after narco- trafficking, we would have spent as much time focusing on the paramilitaries on the right because they are also implicated in the narco-trafficking up to their eyeballs. My concern is that we are now becoming more involved in basically a military effort. We are becoming more involved in what is now counter- insurgency, not counter-narcotics. I was never sure what the divide line was, but we have now changed this. We have said our military weaponry--and I also worry about our U.S. advisers being directly involved in the actual military effort--can now be used to fight an internal counter-insurgency effort. That is a different policy. We have now moved from counter-narcotics to counter-insurgency, and we are becoming directly involved. Part of the problem is that we are relying on this Government and this military and we basically are turning our backs on blatant violations of human rights conditions. My concern is that the military in Colombia--and every human rights organization that does any independent research comes up with the same report--is too closely tied to the AUC or the paramilitary. And, therefore, I say to my colleagues, it is amazing to me, for example, that this administration has certified that the military is doing much better with respect to human rights, and they use Barrancabermeja, where I visited twice, as an example. In Barrancabermeja, it is not the case at all. Senator Leahy has shown important leadership on this question, but I see an administration that is turning its gaze away from all of this because in Barrancabermeja people's phones have been taken from them. They do not have any phones. The paramilitary moves into their homes. There is total terror and, frankly, many people have been murdered. The truth is that two-thirds of the extrajudicial killings every year in Colombia are done by the paramilitary, the AUC, the right. But we are now going to move forward and we are going to become directly involved in direct aid to the military, too much of which is closely tied to the paramilitary, which has been involved in too many slaughters of innocent people. It is counterinsurgency, and we are playing a different role than we played before. We are becoming more directly involved. This is all going to be done with our money. It is going to be done in our name. It is a change of policy. I wish to say, so at least it is part of the record, that I think it is wrong to do so in the supplemental bill, and I want to issue a warning to people in our country that I think this is a profound mistake. I think this is a profoundly mistaken policy. I have had a chance to visit and I especially have become familiar with the work of a priest, Francisco de Roux, who has done some of the finest economic development work, and his approach is manual eradication of the coca plant, not the aerial spraying where the chemicals are used, where many people say they have been sick, where legal crops also end up being destroyed. Frankly, on the ground, we were supposed to be providing money for alternative social development. We haven't done that. We have had the war on drugs. That has been quite unsuccessful. We have done this aerial spraying. Many say: This has affected our health; what are you doing? We have destroyed some of their legal crops. We said we would have alternative crops and economic development money. That has not happened on the ground. We have priests such as Francisco de Roux trying to do it a different way. I hope others will join me in supporting a more productive approach. Now we have moved into a different kind of policy. We are now going to be involved in a joint effort to protect the pipeline. I think the oil companies, Occidental, et al, have a fair amount of money to protect their own pipeline. I don't know why we must use the taxpayers' money. Last time I looked, the oil industry was doing pretty well. I think they made $40 billion in profits last year. It is a long pipeline. I cannot remember how many miles. How many projects are we going to be directly involved in protecting? How much money goes to the military? What is the end game? What is a victory? What are we trying to accomplish? Why the change in policy? We are told: By the way, this is part of the frontline fight against the terrorists. This is not al-Qaeda. A lot of this has gotten mixed up. This is now being justified as part of the war against terrorism. FARC and ELN are terrorist organizations. They have been involved in the indiscriminate murder of locals, and so has the AUC--which we indirectly support because they have ties to the some in the Colombian military. When we directly let our equipment be used in military efforts in counter-insurgency against the terrorists and then try to wrap that up with the fight against al-Qaeda and what happened in the United States and what has happened in Afghanistan and what is going on in south Asia and the Middle East, it is sleight of hand. They are not one and the same. No one has presented one shred of evidence that al-Qaeda is operating in Colombia. No one has presented one shred of evidence this is part of this fight against this terrorist organization. This is a slippery slope. We have made some policy changes. We better understand what we are doing. We are becoming more implicated in counter-insurgency. We are becoming more implicated in direct work with the military, which has been tied too closely to paramilitaries, and rightly have been harshly condemned. I don't, with a broad stroke, condemn everyone, but there are too many elements of the military in Colombia that have been condemned, with irrefutable evidence presented by people who have done the reports--the State Department, human rights organizations and others-- concerning massacres of innocent people. We are basically turning our gaze from that and are quite uncritical. The good work that has been done has been done by Senator Leahy. There are other Senators who care as well, and I appreciate some of the work on human rights conditions, and I appreciate some of the work he has done to slow this down. Senators, I want it on the record--I will have a better formal statement in writing with much more clear evidence, many more facts and figures--that I believe we are making a profound mistake. I say to the Ambassador, Anne Patterson, whom I met, I know we don't agree on all things. She is doing a heroic job under very difficult circumstances, but I do not believe this war against drugs has been anything close to a success. We are now making a change in policy that is of great concern to me. I don't want someone to say that nobody talked about this, or that there were no Senators who raised the questions about this change in policy. It is a small part of the overall bill, so I will vote for the bill, but I am absolutely opposed to this change in policy in relation to Colombia. The administration is going in the wrong direction. I ask the administration to take human rights conditions more seriously. With all due respect, do not certify that there has been compliance with human rights standards when that is patently not the case. I challenge anyone to go to Colombia and on the basis of 1 day come back here and say the military is doing a good job of protecting people. The people you met there, I am not talking about ELN or FARC, the civil society people, the people everyone here would respect who do the human rights work and economic development work, have nothing to do with the left guerrilla organizations. They are not opposed to the military and police but want their protection. They want to know how it can be that so many of them--innocent people who have had the courage to do this work--are murdered with impunity. This administration seems to put all of those concerns in parenthesis, and this Senate, in this supplemental appropriations bill, to tell you the truth, is not giving a change in policy the kind of scrutiny and the kind of analysis or thoughtful deliberation we ought to give it. We are making a mistake.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, everyone has spoken on one side. I ask for 1 minute.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, one other perspective: For the record, the FARC and ELN are involved in narcotrafficking up to their eyeballs. For the record, the paramilitary and the AUC are involved in narcotrafficking up to their eyeballs. For the record, two-thirds of the extrajudicial killings last year were by the AUC and the paramilitary. And for the record, there is one documented case after another after another about the military and the paramilitary being all too connected. So before we provide direct military assistance and weapons that can be used in counterinsurgency by the military, we ought to take a real close look at what is going on in Colombia. I wanted to say that tonight. We will have debate later. I yield the floor. Amendment No. 3569 Withdrawn

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

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. I say to my colleague from Nevada, only if you believe that we are here to do nothing is doing nothing defensible in any way, shape, or form. And that is what we are doing right now. Because if you want to gum up the works here in the Senate and block everything and basically make it impossible for us to move forward--which is what our Republican colleagues have done--you can do that. But I will tell you, the people we represent will not be pleased with us if we operate this way.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I am pleased to yield.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I am sorry. They will not----