Paul Wellstone

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Twenty minutes.

Mr. WELLSTONE. After the Senator from Texas and the Senator from Oklahoma, I follow?

Mr. WELLSTONE. Will the Senator yield for 10 seconds?

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I say to both my colleagues, actually sometimes coming down and waiting to speak is positive. You get to hear people, as my colleague from Texas said, who see it through different lenses, who see it a different way. What I want to do is, first of all, try to bring this debate back to people and talk about it in very personal terms as it affects people in my State of Minnesota. Then I want to speak to what I believe has been a political economy argument that has been made, and I take sharp exception with what my colleagues have had to say. As to Minnesota, believe me, the loan guarantees in this legislation will be much appreciated in my State of Minnesota. My colleagues also mentioned the iron ore mine operations and the steel loan guarantee program sets a $30 million ceiling for iron ore companies. That is going to be particularly important to the Iron Range in northern Minnesota. One hears a lot in the media about the Goldilocks economy we have. I heard some of my colleagues talk about this Goldilocks economy and how great it is; it is a booming economy, we are just humming along. For many of our people in Minnesota, especially on the Iron Range in northeast Minnesota, this Goldilocks economy is much too cold. Already, 10,000 workers have lost their jobs due to a flood of illegally dumped imports. This is the worst crisis the steel industry has faced since the mid-1980s when 28,000 people left the Iron Range in Minnesota for good. We do not want to let it happen again. That is what this debate is about: people's lives, about whether or not we are going to see more broken lives, more broken dreams, more broken families. Now, all these statistics that my colleagues have been laying out, they affect real people in real communities. The surge of steel imports over the past year or so threatens thousands of people in northern Minnesota because iron ore mining is the mainstay of the Iron Range economy. I thought what I would do, since we have heard all these abstract economic theories laid out here, is tell you a little bit about the Iron Range, about the communities, about the people whose future we hold in our hands. Let me repeat that. I want to talk about the people and the communities of the Iron Range, because we hold their future in our hands. More than 20,000 jobs in northern Minnesota depend on the iron ore industry, though less than a third of those workers actually work in the mines. The industry purchases over $876 million in goods and services annually from nearly 200 Minnesota communities, and it contributes more than $1 billion annually to our State's economy. The taconite production tax provides nearly $100 million annually for the support of Iron Range counties, cities, townships, and school districts, and it provides funding for economic development and property tax relief as well. Most of this country's iron ore reserves are in the form of low-grade taconite found on the Mesabi Range of Minnesota. There is no shortage of taconite. In fact, the Mesabi Range holds about 200 years worth of pellet reserves. But the challenge has been to continue mining and processing taconite in a cost-efficient way. I agree with my colleagues when they talk about the importance of being able to compete. No question about it. Back in the 1980s, the industry was told they had to modernize in order to compete with foreign steel. And they did just that. They played by the rules of the game. They poured $1 billion of investment into modernization, and they shed 10,000 jobs. As a result, the industry now has only 6,000 workers, and this industry is the world's most efficient. With the boom in the national economy, some people in the Iron Range were starting to hope that they could dig their way out of the debt they piled up during the 1980s, make an addition to their house, save some money for their kids' college education, and attend to some of the needs they had too long neglected. But sadly, because of the steel crisis, many of those dreams have proved to be short-lived. In 1998, LTV Steel Mining Company in Hoyt Lakes, MN, was forced to reduce its fourth quarter production by 360,000 tons, an equivalent of 66 jobs. Employees at US-Minntac in Mt. Iron, MN, were forced to make concessions last fall to prevent 133 layoffs. Employees at EVTAC in Eveleth, MN, now have nothing left to give. EVTAC permanently laid off 168 employees, a quarter of its employees, when it shut down one of its two pelletizing furnaces last week. EVTAC is fighting hard to stay out of Chapter 11. Two other Iron Range taconite facilities, Butler Taconite and Reserve Mining Company, both closed under similar circumstances in the mid-1980s. We do not want to go through that again. The workers who were laid off at EVTAC, and workers throughout the Iron Range, and steelworkers all across the country are all looking to us for some help. That is where they should look. This crisis is not their fault. They were told to modernize and they did. This crisis is the result of illegal dumping. Unless we want to see a repeat of the 1980s, we must act. Again, this piece of legislation, this loan guarantee is a good first step, but it is only a first step. Soon we are going to be considering legislation introduced by Senator Rockefeller which will provide even more effective relief. I will be joining Senator Rockefeller, and other Senators will be joining him, Democrats and Republicans. I heard some of my colleagues speak to that legislation, and I want to respond to some of their arguments. It is unfortunate that we are in this difficult situation. We should have acted sooner. U.S. trade laws and the WTO recognize the legitimate need of every country to prevent extraordinary import surges such as this one from destroying its industrial infrastructure and eliminating thousands of jobs. Under section 201--let me be bipartisan in my critique--the administration could have imposed the same remedies as now provided in the Rockefeller bill. Steelworkers played by the rules when they modernized their industry, and steelworkers paid the price for that modernization. They made the sacrifice. Steelworkers also played by the rules when they asked for Section 201 relief. But they didn't get it. The administration was implored for months to take action under section 201, and it chose not to do so. Now foreign steel exporters are the ones breaking the rules. The question is not who is playing by the rules but, rather, which rules the administration chooses to apply. Now, my colleagues--as it turns out, Republican colleagues, though I am being critical of my administration, a Democratic administration--my colleagues talk about how this crisis is all the result of Adam Smith's invisible hand. But that is not quite the political economy that we are looking at. The administration did not hesitate to slap 100-percent tariffs on imports from the EU when a top campaign contributor to both parties, Carl Lindner of Chiquita Bananas, had a trade complaint. Lindner's dispute with the EU hardly even involves American jobs. It concerns bananas grown in Central America. But we were there for them. Now when American steelworkers ask for existing trade laws to be applied, they're given short shrift. The message this sends to American manufacturing workers is that they are not a priority. Moreover, this administration went the extra mile, working through the International Monetary Fund, to organize bailouts for Wall Street investors when their risky investments turned sour in Indonesia, Brazil, Korea, Russia and Mexico. But when American steelworkers asked for similar consideration under existing trade rules, they get short shrift. So my colleagues come out here on the floor and they say this bill is terrible. The government getting involved in any kind of loan guarantees? This is the government running the economy. That's hardly the case. When steelworkers say: How about some relief for us, how about some consideration for us under existing trade rules, my colleagues come out here on the floor and they say, this would lead to trade wars. This would do damage to Adam Smith's invisible hand. We can't do that. I didn't hear those same colleagues when it came to the IMF organizing a bailout for the Wall Street investors when their investments went bad in Indonesia or Korea or Russia. I didn't hear the same colleagues come out and say: Oh my gosh, we have a government institution that's involved. When it's these Wall Street interests, it is fine. But when the workers ask for some support, it is not so fine. The administration is concerned that limiting imports from Brazil, Japan and Russia could hurt their slumping economies. I have some sympathy for that argument. We should all be concerned about reviving growth in these countries. But American steelworkers are not a foreign aid charity. They should not be asked to pay the ultimate price, to pay with their jobs, for the failure of this administration's foreign economic policy. And I might add--given what some of my colleagues have said on the other side--I think the failure in foreign economic policy is also a failure of the Congress. When the Clinton administration, working through the IMF, helped bail out Wall Street investors in Brazil, Russia, Indonesia, Korea and Mexico, it committed public resources. It didn't ask Wall Street to pick up the tab by itself, even though the major industrial institutional investors were by far the biggest beneficiaries of the bailout. The administration and some of my colleagues on the other side are now asking steelworkers to pay a price that they would never ask of Wall Street. I hope we can pass that Rockefeller legislation next week. I hope the White House will withdraw its opposition and sign it into law. I heard my colleague from Oklahoma say that he had talked to Secretary Summers and he said the administration was going to veto this bill. I hope they will change their mind. I say to the administration, you were there for the big investors when their investments went sour in some of these other countries. You used public money to help bail them out. You ought to have the same concern for steelworkers and working families in our country. But we need to do even more than that. We need to widen our focus a little bit and address the root causes of this crisis. I heard my colleague from Texas speak about what has gone wrong, and I want to quarrel with his interpretation of international political economy. I think we should be working to change the rules of the global economy so that these kind of devastating crises do not keep happening. I am not worried, like my colleagues are, about these loan guarantees. They will make a difference to an important industry in our country and will be important to so many working families. What I am worried about is our failure to make some changes in this global economy so we don't keep having these devastating crises happening over and over again. I am surprised I have not heard my colleague talk about this at all. The long-term solution to this crisis is restoring economic growth around the world. The steel crisis was precipitated by the collapse of global demand following the Asian crisis, and worsened by the economic crises in Russia and Brazil. Excess steel production is being dumped in the United States because our country is one of the few economies in the world that is growing right now. Only when we have global economic growth, only when this growth revives, will foreign steel producers consume more of their own steel production and find export markets other than the United States. Although the administration claims to be working to revive foreign demand, its actions speak louder than its words. In fact, I believe its policies are marching in the opposite direction. They have tended to promote a ``race to the bottom''--a global trade competition that rewards those countries that can attract foreign capital by advertising the lowest labor, lowest environmental, and lowest safety standards, rather than raising environmental and labor and safety standards overseas. When my colleague from Texas talks about the international economy, I will simply say, no wonder we are in trouble with these trade agreements that don't make sure there are some environmental standards and fair labor standards that other countries have to live up to. What you have is a situation where those countries have a workforce that can't buy anything. There is no demand for what we produce. Those countries tried to export themselves out of the crisis, and our working families are hurt both ways. We are hurt because we can't export to those countries, because the people there don't have any money to buy. At the same time, we are competing against people who are working under exploitive, grinding labor conditions. This is the race to the bottom. Why in the world has this administration not adopted a trade policy that makes much more sense for working people in this country, and for working people in other countries as well? Why, when my colleagues come to the floor, do they continue to talk about this international economy as if it were a level playing field? We dare not speak about any fair labor standards or environmental standards or any safety standards. Despite recent encouraging economic news, there is compelling evidence that something is fundamentally wrong with the world economy. First, it is becoming increasingly obvious that the global economy cannot tolerate ever-increasing inequality among countries and within countries. Policies that lead to the replacement of good-paying union jobs with jobs that pay subsistence-level wages only contribute to growing and dangerous imbalances in the global system. Widening inequality at home and abroad depresses the consumer demand necessary to fuel our economic growth. We need to encourage foreign countries to raise their wages and increase demand, so they can consume more of their own production and stop dumping surplus production on our markets. Similarly, I believe we must reexamine the orthodox view that export- led development is the key to prosperity. Not everyone can rely on export markets for their economic growth. The entry of subsistence-wage China into global competition makes this all too clear. Somebody has to buy all of those exports. For too long the United States has been the buyer of last resort, absorbing excess production from all the export powerhouses. While cold war responsibilities obliged us to play that role in the past, we cannot do this forever. If we want to have a manufacturing sector in our own country, we should aim to make exports a complement, rather than a substitute, to healthy domestic demand. Third, we must come to grips with the related problem of overcapacity and excess production. For various reasons, in industry after industry, gluts have developed in the world economy. The problem of overcapacity is now made worse by the recession and deflation in Asia, Russia, and South America. We need progrowth, stimulative economic policies to restore some of that lost demand. Simply absorbing excess foreign production in the U.S. market is not a solution. We cannot indefinitely run record trade deficits that hollow out American industry, put American workers out of work, and lead to growing economic inequality. Finally, I believe this administration must rethink its zealous commitment to unfettered capital flows, despite the fact that this is a top priority of the U.S. financial interests. Numerous economists have agreed that misguided Treasury, IMF, and OECD promotion of capital account liberalization was an important cause of the Asian crisis. The enormous amount of capital sloshing around the globe at lightning speed injects too much instability into the world economy, and it magnifies the dangers of capital flight, which the IMF cites as justification for plunging Brazil and other economies into deep recession. Instead of placing a priority on the interests of Wall Street investors, the Clinton administration and some of my Republican colleagues should look out more for the interests of average Americans, such as American steelworkers. Its top priority should be Main Street, not Wall Street. It should ignore Wall Street's demands for more IMF austerity overseas, which is designed to safeguard Wall Street investments but ends up creating problems that are later dumped on the backs of American workers. The administration should promote worker rights overseas, rather than demanding antilabor changes in foreign countries' labor laws--as it has done for years, to the applause of Wall Street. And it should promote policies that reduce economic inequality overseas by ensuring that the growth is more broad-based and less lopsided. By promoting more robust, more balanced growth, stronger unions, and more widely shared prosperity overseas, we can help create enough foreign demand so that these countries can consume more of their own production and stop dumping their excess production on our markets. That is the core problem. Looking out for average working people here in the United States and overseas is a win-win proposition. We need a change in policy. Last month, our trade deficit reached record levels. Without a change in course, I am afraid this administration will simply repeat the mistakes of the late 1970s and 1980s, when over 350,000 steelworkers lost their jobs and 28,000 workers left the Iron Range for good. This is why I speak on the floor of the Senate, not just to support this loan guarantee legislation today, which we need and which is important, but also to support the bill Senator Rockefeller will bring to the floor next week that I intend to be out here supporting. I am afraid that this administration's solution to the global economic crisis, and I am afraid given what I heard my colleague from Oklahoma and my colleague from Texas say on the floor of the Senate, that their solution to the global economic crisis will be to ask Americans to continue absorbing more and more imports. Their solution will be to ask--mainly unionized--manufacturing workers to look for jobs elsewhere. Mr. President, this is no solution at all. I yield the floor.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I rise today in solidarity with the workers at Avondale Shipyard in Louisiana, who exactly 6 years ago exercised their democratic right to form a union and bargain collectively. They voted for a union because that was the only way they knew to improve their working conditions, conditions that include more worker fatalities than any other shipyard in the country, massive safety and health violations, and the lowest pay in the shipbuilding industry. Unfortunately, Avondale and its CEO, Albert Bossier, have refused to recognize the union Avondale workers voted for back in 1993. For 6 years the shipyard and its CEO have refused to even enter into negotiations. According to a federal administrative law judge, Avondale management has orchestrated an ``outrageous and pervasive'' union- busting campaign in flagrant violation of this country's labor laws, illegally firing and harassing employees who support the union. I met with some of the Avondale workers several weeks ago when they were here in Washington. What they told me was deeply disturbing. They told me about unsafe working conditions that make them fear for their lives every day they are on the job. They told me that job safety was the number one reason why they voted to join a union back in 1993. And they told me that Avondale continues to harass and intimidate workers suspected of supporting the union. In fact, it appears that one of those workers, Tom Gainey, was harassed when he got back to Louisiana. Avondale gave him a three-day suspension for the high crime of improperly disposing of crawfish remains from his lunch. The Avondale workers also told me that they are starting to lose all faith in our labor laws. For 6 years Avondale has gotten away with thumbing its nose at the National Labor Relations Board, the NLRB. The Avondale workers said they are starting to think there is no point in expecting justice from the Board or the courts. And given what they have been through, I think it is hard to disagree. In February 1998, a Federal administrative law judge found Avondale guilty of ``egregious misconduct,'' of illegally punishing dozens of employees simply because they supported the Avondale union. The judge, David Evans, found that Avondale CEO Albert Bossier had ``orchestrated'' an anti- union campaign that was notable for the ``outrageous and pervasive number and nature of unfair labor practices.'' In fact, Judge Evans found Avondale guilty of over 100 unfair labor practices. Specifically, Avondale had illegally fired 28 pro-union workers, suspended 5 others, issued 18 warning notices, denied benefits to 8 employees, and assigned ``onerous'' work to 8 others. Judge Evans also found that, during public hearings in the Avondale case, Avondale's Electrical Department Superintendent, a general foreman, and two foremen had all committed perjury. He further found that perjury by one of the foremen appears to have been suborned, and he implied that Avondale and its counsel were responsible. Avondale's intimidation of its employees was so outrageous, so pervasive, and so systematic that Judge Evans came down with a highly unusual ruling. He ordered CEO Albert Bossier to call a meeting with Avondale workers and personally read a statement listing all of the company's violations of the law and pledging to stop such illegal practices. Judge Evans further ordered Mr. Bossier to mail a similar confession to workers at their homes. Finally, Judge Evans fined Avondale $3 million and ordered the shipyard to reinstate 28 workers who had been illegally fired for union activities. Pretty remarkable. What is even more remarkable is that Avondale still hasn't paid its fine, still hasn't rehired those 28 workers, and still hasn't made any apology. Why not? Because instead of complying with Judge Evans' order, Avondale chose to challenge the NLRB in court. Judge Evans' ruling concerned Avondale's unfair labor practices during and after the 1993 election campaign. A second trial was held this past winter on charges of unfair labor practices during the mid- 1990s. Now the NLRB has filed charges against Avondale for unfair labor practices since 1998, and a third trial on those charges is scheduled to begin later this year. This has been one of the longest and most heavily litigated unionization disputes in the history of the NLRB. After workers voted for the union in June 1993, Avondale immediately filed objections with the Board. But in 1995 an NLRB hearing officer upheld the election, and in April 1997 the Board certified the Metal Trades Council as the union for Avondale workers, once and for all rejecting Avondale's claims of ballot fraud. At this point, you might think Avondale had no choice but to begin negotiations with the union. But they didn't. Avondale still refused to recognize the union or conduct any negotiations. So in October 1997 the NLRB ordered Avondale to begin bargaining immediately. Instead, Avondale decided to challenge the NLRB's decision in the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, and has succeeded in delaying the process for another two years, at least. Safety problems at Avondale were the central issue in the 1993 election campaign. ``We all know of people who have been hurt or killed at the yard,'' says Tom Gainey, the Avondale worker who was harassed after visiting Congressional offices several weeks ago. ``That's one of the main reasons we came together in a union in the first place.'' Avondale has the highest death rate of any major shipyard. According to federal records, 12 Avondale workers died in accidents from 1982 to 1994. Between 1974 and 1995, Avondale reported 27 worker deaths. The New Orleans Metal Trades Council counts 35 work-related deaths during that period. One Avondale worker has died every year, on average, for the past thirty years. It doesn't have to be that way. Avondale's fatality rate is twice as high as the next most dangerous shipyards. And it's more than twice as high as its larger competitors, Ingalls Shipyard and Newport News. Avondale workers have died in various ways, many from falling or from being crushed by huge pieces of metal. Avondale workers have fallen from scaffolds, been struck by falling ship parts, been crushed by weights dropped by cranes, and have fallen through uncovered manholes. Avondale's safety problems are so bad that it recently got slapped with the second largest OSHA fine ever issued against a U.S. shipbuilder. OSHA fined Avondale $537,000 for 473 unsafe hazards in the workplace. OSHA found that 266 of these violations--more than half-- were ``willful'' violations. In other words, they were hazards Avondale knew about and had refused to fix. Most of these violations were for precisely the kind of hazards that account for Avondale's unusually high fatality rate. These 266 ``willful'' violations involved hazards that can lead to fatal falls, and three of the seven workers who died at Avondale between 1990 and 1995 died from falls. Didn't Avondale learn anything from these tragedies? OSHA found 107 ``willful'' violations for failure to provide adequate railings on scaffolding. 51 willful violations for unsafe rope rails. 30 willful violations for improperly anchored fall protection devices. 25 willful violations for inadequate guard rails on high platforms. And 27 willful violations for inadequate training in the use of fall protection. OSHA also found 206 ``serious'' violations for many of the same kind of hazards. ``Serious'' violations are ones Avondale knew about--or should of known about--that pose a substantial danger of death or serious injury. This is what Labor Secretary Alexis Herman had to say about Avondale's safety problems: ``I am deeply concerned about the conditions OSHA found at Avondale. Falls are a leading cause of on-the- job fatalities, and Avondale has put its workers at risk of falls up to 90 feet. The stiff penalties are warranted. Workers should not have to risk their lives for their livelihood.'' OSHA Assistant Secretary Charles Jeffress said, ``Three Avondale workers have fallen to their deaths, one each in 1984, 1993, and 1994. This inspection revealed that conditions related to these fatalities continued to exist at the shipyard. This continued disregard for their employees' safety is unacceptable.'' And what was Avondale's response? True to form, Avondale appealed the OSHA fines. Avondale claimed that many of the violations were the result of employee sabotage. Avondale also tried to argue that the OSHA inspector was biased. In response, the head of OSHA observed that ``it's very unusual for a company to accuse its own employees of sabotage, and it's very unusual for a company to attack the objectivity of OSHA inspectors.'' OSHA had found many of the same problems back in 1994, the last time it conducted a comprehensive inspection of Avondale. In 1994 OSHA cited Avondale 61 times for 81 violations, with a fine of $80,000 that was later settled for $16,000. There may be more fines to come. The OSHA inspection team will soon finish its review of Avondale's safety and medical records. This review was delayed last October when Avondale launched yet another legal battle to prevent OSHA from obtaining complete access to its records. One of the Avondale workers who visited my office several weeks ago was there during the OSHA inspection, and told me how it happened. OSHA tried to inspect Avondale's Occupational Injuries and Illness logs. But Avondale refused complete access and, according to OSHA, ``attempted to place unnecessary controls over the movements of the investigative team and their contact with employees.'' When OSHA issued a subpoena for the logs, Avondale stopped all cooperation with OSHA and told the inspectors to leave the premises. OSHA had to go to New Orleans district court to get an order enforcing the subpoena. The other main issue in the 1993 election campaign was pay and compensation. Avondale workers have long been the worst paid in the shipbuilding industry. They have the lowest average wage of any of the five major private shipyards. According to a survey conducted by the AFL-CIO, Avondale workers make 29 percent less than workers at other private contractors for the Navy, and 48 percent less than workers at the nation's federal shipyards. One Avondale mechanic, Mike Boudreaux, says, ``It's a sweatshop with such low wages.'' By way of comparison, look at Ingalls Shipyard, down the river in Pascagoula, Mississippi. The average pay at Ingalls is higher than the top pay at Avondale. Or look at wages in nearby New Orleans for plumbers, pipe fitters, and steam fitters. Their average wage is higher than the top pay at Avondale. Avondale is also known for its inadequate pension plan. There are Avondale retirees with 30 years' experience who retire with $300 per month. And workers complain that they can't afford Avondale's family health insurance, which costs $2,000 per year. Avondale workers pay more for health care every week than Ingalls workers pay every month. Unlike other shipyards, Avondale has had a hard time attracting workers, and inferior working conditions certainly have a lot to do with it. Avondale has responded to this labor shortage by using prison labor and importing workers from other countries. It imported a group of Scottish and English workers who were so appalled at the working conditions and low pay that they quit after three days. Nearby Ingalls shipyard, by contrast, has never had to import foreign workers on visas. So why does Avondale pay so little? Because times are tough? Hardly. Avondale CEO Alfred Bossier has been doing quite well, thank you. In 1998, Mr. Bossier's base salary and bonuses totaled $1,012,410, up more than 20 percent from the previous year. His benefits increased to $17,884, up 73 percent from the previous year. And he got 45,000 shares of stock options, worth up to $1,927,791. The grand total comes to about $3 million. Meanwhile, the average hourly production worker at Avondale earns less than $10 an hour--or around $20,000 per year. So Al Bossier brings home about 150 times the salary of the average hourly worker. The obvious question is how can Avondale get away with such appalling behavior? How can it be so brazen? The answer is depressing. Avondale gets away with it because our labor laws are filled with loopholes. Avondale gets away with it because the decks are stacked against workers who want to improve their working conditions by bargaining collectively. Avondale gets away with it because they have enough money to tie up the courts, knowing full well that organizing drives can fizzle out in the five or six or seven years that highly-paid company lawyers can drag out the process. When asked how Avondale gets away with it, one worker laughed and said, ``This is America. It's money that talks.'' There's one other reason why Avondale gets away with it, and this is something I find especially troubling. They get away with it because American taxpayers are footing the bill. The Navy and the Coast Guard are effectively subsidizing Avondale's illegal union-busting campaign. Avondale gets about 80 percent of its contracts from the Navy for building and repairing ships. If it weren't for the United States Navy, Avondale probably wouldn't exist. This poster child for bad corporate citizenship is brought to you courtesy of the American taxpayer. This is a classic case of the left hand not knowing what the right hand is doing. On the one hand, the NLRB and OSHA find Avondale in flagrant violation of the law. On the other hand, the Navy keeps rewarding Avondale with more contracts. Avondale has gotten $3.2 billion in contracts from the Navy since 1993, when the shipyard first refused to bargain collectively with its workers. To add insult to injury, Avondale is billing the Navy for its illegal union-busting. The Navy agreed to pick up the tab for anti-union meetings held on company time in 1993. Nearly every day for three months leading up to the union election, Avondale management called workers into anti-union meetings. Then they billed the Navy for at least 15,216 hours spent by workers at those meetings. Some of these meetings were the same ones where Avondale illegally harassed and intimidated workers, according to Judge Evans. Yet the Defense Contractor Auditing Agency, DCAA, approved Avondale's billing as indirect spending for shipbuilding. And Avondale billed the Navy $5.4 million between 1993 and 1998 for legal fees incurred in its NLRB litigation. When the Navy looks the other way as one of its main contractors engages in flagrant lawbreaking, it sends a message. When the Navy keeps awarding contracts to Avondale, when it pays Avondale for time spent in anti-union meetings where workers are harassed and intimidated, when it pays for the legal costs of fighting Avondale's workers, it sends a message. It sends the message that this kind of behavior by Avondale is okay. When Avondale continues to beat out other shipyards for huge defense contracts, that sends a message too. It sends a message that this is the way you compete in America today. You compete by violating your workers' rights to free speech and free assembly. You compete by illegally firing and harassing your workers. You compete by keeping your employees from bettering their working conditions through collective bargaining. And that message is not lost on other companies. They see what Avondale is getting away with, and they draw the obvious conclusions. The AFL-CIO's state director pointed to another Louisiana company that initially refused to recognize the union its workers had elected. ``Part of it is they're following Bossier's lead,'' she said. ``After all, the guy's been at it for five years [now six] and he still gets all the contracts he wants.'' Under federal regulations, the Navy is required to exercise oversight over the $3.2 billion in contracts it has awarded to Avondale. And the Navy can only award contracts to ``responsible contractors.'' The contracting officer has to make an affirmative finding that a contractor is responsible. Part of the definition of a ``responsible contractor'' is having a ``satisfactory record of integrity and business ethics.'' So the Navy has to affirmatively determine that Avondale has a satisfactory record of integrity and business ethics. Well, what exactly would qualify as an unsatisfactory record? Judge Evans ruled that Avondale management had orchestrated an ``outrageous and pervasive'' union-busting campaign consisting of over 100 violations of labor law and the illegal firing of 28 employees. OSHA has found 473 safety violations--266 of them willful--and fined Avondale $537,000, the second largest fine in U.S. shipbuilding history. The AFL-CIO has asked the Navy to investigate Avondale's business practices, as a first step to determining what steps should be taken. That doesn't sound so unreasonable to me. In fact, it seems to me that the Navy ought to be concerned when its contracts come in late, as they have at Avondale. It ought to be concerned when a contractor's working conditions are so bad that it suffers from labor shortages. And it seems to me the Navy ought to investigate whether a company found to have orchestrated an ``outrageous and pervasive'' campaign to violate labor laws is a responsible contractor. Or whether a shipyard found to have willfully violated health and safety laws 266 times is a responsible contractor. The Navy says it cannot take sides in a labor dispute. But nobody is asking them to do that. The problem is that they already appear to have taken sides. When the Navy finances Avondale's union-busting campaign, when it pays legal fees for Avondale's court challenges, when it certifies Avondale as a responsible contractor with a satisfactory record of integrity and business ethics, and when it rewards Avondale with Navy contracts, the Navy appears to be taking sides. What has happened at Avondale should give us all pause. The NLRB's general counsel acknowledges that the Avondale case exposes the many problems with the system, caused in part by budget cuts and procedural delays. ``It's hard to take issue with the notion that it's frustrating that an election that took place five years ago [now six] still hasn't come to a conclusion. It's something we're looking at as an example of the process not being what it should be.'' Indeed, the Avondale case exposes glaring loopholes in our labor laws that make it next to impossible for workers to form a union and bargain collectively. In fact, this case provides us with a roadmap for putting a stop to rampant abuses of our labor laws. First of all, we need to restore cuts in the NLRB's budget so that defendants with deep pockets can't delay the process for years and years. But beyond that, we need to improve our labor laws so we can put a stop to abuses of the kind we've seen in the Avondale case. We need to install unions quickly after they win an election, the same way we allow elected officials to take office pending challenges to their election. Why should workers be treated any differently than politicians? In addition, we need to strengthen penalties against unfair labor practices such as the illegal firing of union organizers and sympathizers. And we need to ensure that organizers have equal access to workers during election campaigns, so that companies like Avondale are not able to intimidate their employees and monopolize the election debate. Senator Kennedy and I have introduced legislation that would do exactly that. Our bill--S. 654, the Right to Organize Act of 1999-- would provide for mandatory mediation and binding arbitration, if necessary, after a union is certified. It would provide for treble damages and a private right of action when the NLRB finds that an employers has illegally fired its workers for union activity. And it would give organizers equal access to employees during a union election campaign. The Avondale case sends a message to other companies and to workers everywhere, and it's the exact opposite of the message we should be sending. We should be sending a message that corporations are citizens of their community and need to obey the law and respect the rights of their fellow citizens. We should be sending a message that corporations who live off taxpayer money, especially, have an obligation to be good corporate citizens. Avondale is making a mockery of U.S. labor laws and of the democratic right to organize. Instead of rewarding and financing the illegal labor practices of employers such as Avondale, I believe we should shine a light on these abuses and put a stop to them. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I will take a couple of minutes, actually, to speak on our time. I want to make a connection between what my colleague from Wisconsin, Senator Feingold, was saying about the mix of money and politics and all the ways in which big money undercuts representative democracy. I want to make a connection to a piece of legislation that we are trying to get out here on the floor, which is the Patient Protection Act. I say to my colleague from Wisconsin, who is calling the payroll, one of the things I want to do is maybe just come to the floor and present some data about contributions that come from parties on all sides of this question. But from my point of view, you have a health insurance industry that sort of really basically has made the effort to keep universal health care coverage and, for that matter, basic protection of patients, consumer protection, off of the agenda. I think it is our responsibility to put it back on the agenda. I think we have reached a point in our country where the pendulum has swung too far in the direction of increasingly ``corporatized'' medicine, and it has become corporatized, bureaucratized. You have basically a few large insurance companies that own and control the majority of the managed care plans and, as a result of that, the consumers and the patients wonder where we fit in. There are a series of Senators on the Democratic side--I certainly hope there will be an equal number on the Republican side--that are committed to bringing patient protection legislation to the floor. Some of my colleagues, such as Senators Durbin, Kennedy, I think Boxer, and certainly Senator Daschle have introduced a bill, and we were all speaking about this last night. We want to talk about ways in which there can be sensible consumer protection. That is really what the issue is: Making sure our caregivers--our doctors and our nurses--are able to make decisions about the care we need as opposed to having the insurance industry decide; making sure you have a medicine that is not a monopoly medicine with the bottom line as the only line; making sure people don't find themselves, as employers shift from one plan to another, no longer able to take their child to a trusted family doctor; making sure families with children with illnesses are able to have access to the kind of specialty care that is the best care for their children; making sure there is an ombudsman program available so that advocates who are there, to whom people can go, do know what their rights are; making sure that when we have an external review process of the kind of decisions that are made, people have a place to make an appeal and they know the decision will be a fair decision--making sure, in other words, that we are able to obtain the best care for our families. As I travel around Minnesota--and around the country, for that matter--I find it astounding the number of people, the number of families, that fall between the cracks. The number of people--even if you are old enough for Medicare, it is not comprehensive. Seniors from Minnesota can't afford the prescription drug costs. It does nothing about catastrophic expenses at the end of your life. If you are ill and you have to be in a nursing home, almost everything you make is basically going to be taken away; there will be nothing left. That is one of the things that strikes terror in the hearts of elderly people--or people aren't poor enough for medical assistance, which is by no means comprehensive enough; or people aren't lucky enough to be working for an employer that can provide them with good coverage. To boot, what happens right now is that people who have the coverage find that with this medicine that we have, it is just going so far in the direction of becoming a bottom-line medicine that consumers are basically left in the dust. We want to have some sensible protection for consumers. We want to bring it to the floor of the Senate. And we want to have a debate on this legislation. The majority party--the Republican Party--leadership has taken to the situation that they want to be able to sign off on amendments we introduce. But that is not the way it works. It not a question of some Senators telling other Senators what amendments are the right amendments to introduce. We should have the full-scale debate. We should be able to come out here with amendments. We should be able to come out here with amendments that provide consumers with more rights to make sure that people have access to the care they need; to make sure the decisions are made by qualified providers; to make sure the bottom line is not the only line; to make sure this is not an insensitive medical system; to make sure that people do not go without the kind of care they need. We want to do that. We are committed to making this fight, and, if necessary, I think what you are going to see happen over the next week and beyond is that we are going to, one way or another, have a debate about this critically important issue. As long as I am talking about health care, I would like to say also that I think the other central issue is the way in which the insurance industry is taking universal health care coverage off the table. We need to put it back on the table. I can't think of an issue that is more important to families in our country. Mr. President, might I ask how much time we have left?

Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Presiding Officer for his patience. I ask unanimous consent, without anybody on the floor, that I be allowed an additional 10 minutes to speak.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, this is a real pleasure, because one of the problems we have had out here on the floor of the Senate is not enough time to be able to focus on issues that are terribly important, that we really believe ought to be part of this debate and part of the discussion. As long as I see the Chair, the Senator from Ohio, presiding, I would like to thank him for what I think is really his focus, or at least part of his work, which is the importance of what we do in making sure that, even before kindergarten, we do well by our children. I would really like to say before the Senate that I hope we will get back soon to a focus on the family issue. I don't think it is all, I say to the Presiding Officer, Government policy. But I do think it is a combination of public sector and private sector and community volunteer work. It should be a marriage made in Heaven, where we really bring people together and we as a nation achieve the following goal. To me, this is the most important goal. I think this should be the central goal of the public policy of the Senate and the House of Representatives. I think this is where the Federal Government can matter, where we can be a real player: It is pre-K. We ought to make it our goal that every child prekindergarten--she knows the alphabet, he knows colors and shapes and sizes; she knows how to spell her name; he knows his telephone number; and each and every one of them has been read to live; and each and every one of the children in our country comes to kindergarten and has that readiness to learn--they have, I say to the Presiding Officer, that spark of learning that he saw as Governor when he visited elementary school; they have that. There are just too many children who, by kindergarten, are way behind, and they fall further behind, and then they run into difficulty. I just want to say I really am disappointed that, in spite of all the studies, in spite of all the reports, in spite of a White House conference, in spite of all of the media coverage--and to a certain extent there is a part of me with some anger that says maybe in spite of the hype--that we have not centered our attention on what it is we could do here in the Senate and in the House of Representatives to enrich the lives of children in our country, to make sure that somehow we can renew our national vow of equal opportunity for every child. From my point of view, I think there is probably no more important focus. If I were to think about the kind of issues we talk about all the time--solvency for Social Security; where are we going to be as a nation in 1050? Are we going to have a productive, high-moral, skilled workforce? What about Medicare expenses? How do we reduce violence in our communities, violence in homes, violence in schools, violence out in the neighborhood?--each and every time, I make the argument, the most important thing we could do would be to make an investment in the health and skills and intellect and character of our children. To me, that would start with pre-K. The tragedy of it all--it is a tragedy because we are talking about people's lives--is we have not focused on that agenda at all. We don't even have but about 50 percent of the kids who qualify for Head Start receiving assistance; and, if it is early Head Start, pre-3-year-olds. I think it is naive. It is just a couple of percentage points. I don't think it is even 10 percent. If you move beyond low-income and you look at working families, we are lucky if 20 percent of the families that could use some assistance, some investment that would help them find good child care for their children, get any assistance at all. And then, if you move beyond that and you talk about the wages of child care workers, who do the most important work, it is deplorable the kind of wages we pay. On the floor of the Senate, I argue that this ought to be our priority. I argue that it doesn't--it cannot make us comfortable that at the same time the economy is humming along, we have about one out of every four children under the age of three growing up poor, and about one out of every two children of color under the age of three growing up poor in our country. We ought to make that a big part of our agenda--children's education, health care coverage, patient protection rights, universal health care coverage. Finally, I will finish by going back to what Senator Feingold said. I will make sure he is not lonely and out here alone. I will help him call that bankroll, because we ought to put reform right at the top of our agenda. We ought to talk about the mix of money and politics. We ought to talk about the ways in which big money dominates politics. We ought to understand the fact that the reason people have become disillusioned with politics is not because they don't care about the issues that are important to their lives. People care deeply and desperately about being able to earn a decent living, giving their children the care they deserve and need, about livable communities, and about being able to do well by their kids. People care about all those issues and more. They care deeply and desperately. However, they also believe that their concerns are of little concern in the Nation's Capitol, where politics is so dominated by the big money, by the investors, by the givers, by the heavy hitters. They believe if you pay, you play; and if you don't pay, you don't play. We ought to make reform and the way money has turned elections into auctions and severely undercutting representative democracy, where each and every man and woman should count as one and no more than one--that is not the case--we ought to make that the central issue. I heard Senators Feingold, Durbin, Boxer, Kennedy and Senator Daschle speaking. We intend to bring these issues to the floor, along with one other issue that is near and dear to my heart: That is what has now become an economic tragedy--family farmers are being driven off the land. When will they get a fair price? When will they have a fair and open market? When do we take action against the conglomerates that basically dominate the market? When do we take antitrust action? I heard my colleague talking about Senator LaFollette. When do we take on the economic interests? When will we be there on the side of children, on the side of education, on the side of decent health care, on the side of reform, on the side of working people, on the side of producers? We ought to be there. All these issues are interrelated. These are the issues that we will insist be part of the agenda of this Senate. I yield the floor.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I would be proud, I say to my colleague, Senator Feingold, to be his first recruit in calling the bankroll. I think it is extremely important. I also want to say, being a Senator from the Midwest, that we talk about the fighting La Follette, and we have a fighting Russ Feingold from the State of Wisconsin, who I think is the Bob La Follette of this Senate. I thank him for his focus on what I believe is a core issue. Mr. President, how much time do we have on our side in morning business?

Mr. WELLSTONE. Might I ask, so that I know, if I suggest the absence of a quorum, does that time burn off on our part?

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, rather than having to put it in the form of a question, I appreciate the way my colleague made the UC request. I come to the floor in complete support of what Senator Jeffords is trying to do. One can look at it in a couple of different ways. One can look at it in terms of the numbers in the here and now, but, frankly, as I look at this picture over a period of time, I do not think we have done near what we should by way of investment in renewable energy. That is what my colleague from Vermont is saying. I come from a cold weather State at the other end of the pipeline, and when we import barrels of oil and Mcfs of natural gas, we export dollars and yet we are rich in resources--wind, solar, safe energy. My colleague is right on the mark. I thank him for his leadership. We should be making much more of an investment in this area. It is on sound ground from the point of view of the environment. It leads us down the path of smaller business economic development, technologies that are more compatible with communities, more homegrown economies, more capital investment locally. I thank my colleague for his work and tell him what he has been trying to do is important. He is right on the mark, and I add my support to his effort.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I regret that I cannot support S. 1186, the FY 2000 Energy and Water Appropriations bill. I cannot support this bill because its funding for renewable energy falls far short of what we need in this country as we head into the 21st Century. The funding level provided in this bill, $353.9 million, doesn't come close to meeting the Administration's budget request. S. 1186 has $92 million less for renewables than the Administration requested. This represents a cut from last year's final appropriated level of about $12 million. This is a very difficult vote for me because S. 1186 includes funding for some very important projects and programs. There are two projects that I believe are particularly important, the Marshall Flood Control Project and the Stillwater Levee. The Marshall Flood Control Project has been under consideration since the early 1970s and was authorized under the 1986 and 1988 Water Resources Development Act (WRDA). The FY 1999 Energy and Water Appropriations bill included $1.5 million for this project, and the Army Corps was able to reprogram an additional $700,000. FY 2000 funding will make it possible for a significant portion of the Stage Two work to be completed during this year's construction season. The Stillwater Levee is another worthy project funded in this bill. Although the levee survived last year's high waters, it is in urgent need of repairs. The levee will protect downtown Stillwater, which includes over 60 sites on the National Register of Historic Sites. It is especially unfortunate that we failed to take advantage of the opportunity we had to improve this bill. Senator Jeffords proposed an amendment that would have increased funding for solar and geothermal energy by $70 million, and we did not even get an up-or-down vote on his amendment. I think it was an important amendment, and I was proud to be an original cosponsor. I very much appreciate the leadership of my friend from Vermont on this issue. As we near the millenium, I believe we need a far stronger commitment to a renewable energy future, not the $12 million cut for renewable energy in this bill. For too long, we have allowed our economy to remain hostage to oil, much of it imported. We should all recognize that our addiction to fossil fuels is not sustainable. We fight wars in part over oil, which we then use to pollute our skies, while providing tax breaks to large oil companies. Petroleum has helped us to achieve a very high standard of living in the western world, and oil will continue to be a major part of our economy. Indeed, oil is the central nervous system of the western world's economy. But we have been in need of surgery for years now. In the past, we have risen to the challenge when faced with a visible crisis and rising prices. Can we do it again without long gas lines and with stable prices? I say we can. Indeed, while many see only a future of constraints, I see a future with opportunities. After all, what will it take to stop overloading Mother Nature? Higher efficiency and more reliance on cleaner fuels. And what will that lead to? Manufacturing enterprises with the lowest operating costs in the world. Households that generate electricity from rooftop solar arrays. Farmers who harvest an additional ``crop''--the winds that blow over their fields. City streets inhabited by quiet and pollution-free electric vehicles. That is a future the American people surely can rally behind. Now is the time to rally all Americans behind that vision of the future. But unfortunately, this bill fails to do that. In fact, I believe it is a step in the wrong direction, and for that reason I am voting against it.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, one of the oldest boy scout troops in the country, Troop 33 of Minneapolis, Minnesota, is celebrating its eightieth anniversary with a trip to Washington, D.C. to learn about U.S. government. Founded in 1918, Boy Scout Troop 33 has served its community for three generations and produced 269 Eagle Scouts. Troop 33 has conducted extensive service projects, including: flood relief sandbagging in Fargo, North Dakota; collecting food and clothes for the poor; severe tornado damage clean-up in St. Peter, Minnesota; leading bingo games for veterans; volunteering at an AIDS house; visiting nursing home residents; entertaining disabled adults; building wheelchair ramps; serving as a color guard at the Chapel at Fort Snelling National Cemetery; and running a blood donation drive at their sponsoring church, Westminster Church of Minneapolis, Minnesota. The troop has extraordinary long-term continuity. Three families have contributed three generations of Eagles and there are eight father-son combinations on the Eagle list. The troop has also had continuity of leadership, with only seven men serving as Scoutmaster during Thirty- Three's eighty years: Kyle Cudworth, Ted Carlsen, Rich Wheaton, Stan Moore, Bill Braddock, Karl Ostlund, and Dave Moore. Troop 33's current Scoutmaster, Dave Moore, has served as Scoutmaster to over 1,150 scouts over the course of 33 years, representing over 3,000 boy-years in scouting. Now in his fiftieth year of scouting, Mr. Moore, who joined the Troop at age 12, has helped his boys to earn 2833 ranks, including 130 Eagles, and over 5,900 merit badges. Mr. Moore has helped thousands of young people to discover the enjoyment that comes from service and to dedicate themselves to building strong communities. Over the years, the troop has received numerous honors and awards. Leaders have earned the prestigious Silver Beaver Award, the Eagle-to- Eagle Award, and the This-is-Your-Life Award. On the national level, their scouts have received the Whitney Young Award and the George Meany Award. Also, former Scoutmaster Ted Carlsen received the national Silver Buffalo Award in recognition of his many years of service to scouting at the Troop, council, and national levels. The achievements and dedication of Troop 33 exemplify the value of scouting as a learning experience, aiding boys in acquiring leadership abilities, recognizing the responsibilities of citizenship, and contributing to the community.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Madam President, we have Boy Scouts from the Minnesota troops here, and I would like to welcome them. They are up in the gallery. I mention that because the Scouts represent a real tradition of public service. Maybe I should not have done that. If not, I stand corrected. Let me just say the Scouts represent a real tradition of public service, and if Scouts should come here and visit and be in the gallery, then I would be very proud. For the Scouts' information, there are certain rules of the Senate that govern what we say and don't say.

Mr. WELLSTONE

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

Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Chair. Madam President, having just returned from Minnesota, I want to speak on the floor for a few short minutes, first of all, in support of the amendment that my colleague, Senator Kennedy, introduced, which is really the Work Incentives Improvement Act, S.331, which he has done so much work on, along with Senator Jeffords. My understanding is--it could be that my colleague, Senator Reid of Nevada, spoke about this--Senator Kennedy came to the floor and said: ``Listen, we want some action on this bill.'' We do want action on this. We have 78 Senators who are cosponsors of the Work Incentives Improvement Seventy-eight consponsors means, by definition, that this is a strong bipartisan effort. The reason for this bill, with all of its support, is really all about dignity. For Senators who talk about self-sufficiency and self- reliance and people being able to live lives with dignity, that is what this is about. I am sure the Chair has experienced this, when you are back home and you talk to people in the disabilities community over and over again, you hear people telling you that they are ready to go to work if only they could be sure they wouldn't lose their health insurance--insurance they literally need to live. I don't know, but I think the unemployment rate among people with disabilities is well above 50 percent; the poverty rate is also above 50 percent. The problem is, when people in the disabilities community work, they lose the medical assistance they have now. What this piece of legislation says is that we want people to be able to live at home in as near a normal circumstance as possible, with dignity. That is what the Work Incentives Improvement Act is all about. I come to the floor to say to my colleague, Senator Kennedy, that if he wants to force the issue on this bill that we have before us, the Energy and Water Appropriations bill, I am all for that. If we can get some kind of a commitment from Senators as to whether we can bring this piece of legislation up freestanding, have an up-or-down vote--78 Senators are cosponsors--then I am for that. Those of us who feel strongly about this issue and have met with people back home and heard their pleas really want to respond to the concerns and circumstances of their lives. It is very moving to meet with people in the disabilities community, to have people say to you: If you could do this, it would help us so much. We are running out of patience; we really are. For colleagues who are blocking this and getting in the way of our being able to bring this to the floor and having a vote on this, be it unanimous consent, or be it 78 to 22, or 99 to 1 or whatever the case might be, so be it. I do not mind the 1; I have been on the losing end of a couple 99 to 1 votes in the last two months. If a Senator feels strongly about that, and it is his or her honest opinion that this legislation shouldn't pass, fine. He or she has the right to speak out, to try to persuade others and to vote his or her conscience. What I don't like is the way in which this piece of legislation has been held up so that it is not possible to debate it and vote on it at all. That, I think, is unconscionable.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I will be pleased to yield.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Madam President, again, I appreciate the comments of Senator Reid of Nevada. I think all of us feel strongly about this and are prepared to fight it out. We have waited long enough for the men and women, the young people and the elderly people with disabilities who want to work and who will lose health care coverage. We ought to pass this legislation, and the sooner the better. I will yield the floor in a moment. I wasn't here for the colloquy or the suggestion about our mental health parity legislation. I am looking forward to this journey with Senators Domenici, Reid, and Kennedy--and maybe I am really being presumptuous, but I hope Senator Collins and others as well, because I think the time has come for this idea. I think you can make a pretty strong case there that there is entirely too much discrimination when it comes to coverage for those struggling with mental illness. This cuts across a broad section of the population. I am extremely hopeful that we will be able to pass this legislation, which would make a huge positive difference in the lives of so many people. I want to say on the floor that I am also committed to trying to do more when it comes to substance abuse treatment. We have the same problem there, where people have pretty good coverage for physical illnesses, but for somebody struggling with alcoholism, it is a detox center 2 or 3 days each time a year, and that is it. You know, a lot of these diseases are brain diseases with biochemical connections and neurological connections and people's health insurance should cover the disease of addiction just like it covers heart disease or diabetes. Our policy is way behind; it is outdated and discriminatory. The tragedy of it is that so many people in the recovery community can talk about the ways in which, when they received treatment, they have been able to rebuild their lives and contribute at their place of work, to their families, and to their communities. This is nonsensical. So these will be separate pieces of legislation on the Senate side. But I am very excited about this effort with Senator Domenici, Senator Reid, Senator Kennedy, and others as well. I believe we can pass this mental health parity legislation. I think what we did in 1996 was a small step forward. Now I think we have to do something that will really provide people with much more coverage. Having said that, let me just make one other point. When we talk about this whole issue of parity and trying to end discrimination in health insurance coverage, one issue we still don't deal with is what happens if people have no coverage at all. When we are saying you ought to treat these illnesses the same way we treat physical illnesses, what we are not doing is dealing with those that have no coverage whatsoever. I still think that a front-burner issue in American politics is universal health care coverage and comprehensive health care reform. I have introduced legislation called the Healthy Americans Act. Sometime I would like to bring it out on the floor and have an up-or- down vote on it. I think we ought to be talking about universal coverage. The insurance industry took it off the table a few years ago; I think we should put it back on the table and I am going to work as hard as I can to do that. But right now, I wanted to come to the floor and support Senator Kennedy's effort. Hopefully, we will soon have an up-or-down vote on the Work Incentives Improvement Act. I hope we don't have to keep bringing it out as an amendment on other bills so it gets the attention it needs. This is a piece of legislation that deserves an up-or-down vote now. Finally, also in the spirit of amendments, I will keep bringing back the welfare tracking amendment, because the more I look at the studies that are coming out and the more I talk to people in the field, the more strongly I feel that as policymakers we ought to at least have some evaluation of what we have done. I think it is a terrible mistake not to do so. My amendment lost by one vote last time. I will bring it back, and I hope to get a couple more votes. It does nothing more than just say to Health and Human Services let's get from the States data every year so we know what is happening to the women and children, so we can have a sense of what kind of jobs they have, at what wages, and whether there is child care for children. We need to do that. It is a terrible mistake not to have that knowledge. I want to mention to colleagues that I will be bringing this amendment out within the next week--if not this week, next week--and I am hoping this time to somehow get a majority vote for it. I think it is reasonable and we should do it. I don't think we should turn away from this. It is important to know, especially because in the next couple of years, by 2002, in every State in the country, benefit reductions will have been fully felt. I think we ought to know how we are doing before that happens. I yield the floor.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I say to Senator Domenici, I look forward to this work on the Mental Health Equitable Treatment Act.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Chair.

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

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

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I want to very briefly speak about the settlement in Kosovo. I speak with a sense of relief that we now have moved toward a diplomatic settlement. At the very beginning, I think it was a very difficult vote for all of us as to whether or not to authorize airstrikes. We had pretty close to an equal division of opinion. I voted to do so. I had hoped that we would be able to stop the slaughter. I thought that it was a certainty that Milosevic would move into Kosovo and people would be slaughtered. We were not able to really do that with airstrikes, not in any way that I had hoped we would be able to, but I do think--and I want to give some credit where credit is due--there are two things that have happened that are very important for the world. One of them is that Milosevic has been indicted as a war criminal. That is a huge step forward for human rights in the world. The second thing that has happened is our actions have made it clear that a Milosevic or someone like a Milosevic should not be able to murder people with impunity. There are many challenges ahead, but I want to just say that as a Senator from Minnesota, I am very pleased that we did put such a focus on trying to reach a diplomatic solution. I would like to especially thank Strobe Talbott for his work. I think it is extremely important now that we meet a number of really tough challenges. I am not the expert in the Balkans; I do not pretend to be, but I do know this: It is very important that we continue to keep our focus on the humanitarian crisis and make sure the Kosovars can, indeed, go home, the sooner the better. I think an all-out effort ought to be made to make sure they can go back to their homes. If we are going to do the weatherizing and all the things in the infrastructure for people to have a home to live in, then it is better to do it back in their own country. I hope we can do so. I hope we can move as quickly and as expeditiously as possible. Second, I think it is going to be real important that all parties to this settlement live up to their word. I think that includes the KLA. There will be an understanding, kind of determination on the part of Kosovars and the KLA for vengeance. Who can blame them? But I do think we have to make sure that we do put an end to this conflict and that the Serbs who live in Kosovo will also be protected and that somehow we will be able to make sure there is some peace in this region. Finally, I want to say, as a Senator who supported airstrikes but who worried about some of the focus of our airstrikes, in particular, I thought there was too much of a focus on the civilian infrastructure. I thought and still believe there were opportunities to move forward with diplomacy at an earlier point in time. I always believe that is the first option, always the first option, with military conflict being the last option. I do want to say that I think the President and the administration should be proud of the fact that they have now been able to effect a diplomatic solution and that this solution, indeed, will mean that the Kosovars will be able to go home. It will mean there will be an international force. It will be a militarized force. There will be a chain of command that makes sense. It is a huge challenge ahead for us. My guess is that we are going to be committed to the Balkans for quite some period of time. I think we should be very realistic about that. I think that we owe that to the Kosovars. We owe it to these people. I think that is part of what our country is about. It looks as if the European countries are going to take up most of the challenge of the economic aid for reconstruction, and I think that is as it should be. I think our part of this international militarized force would be somewhere at 14, 15 percent. But certainly it won't be the United States carrying this alone. I worry about the landmines. I worry about our military and, for that matter, the men and women from other countries who are trying to do the right thing now, being in harm's way. But to now no longer be involved in airstrikes, to see the Serbs leaving, the slaughter being stopped, the Kosovars now having a chance to go back to their homes and to be protected, I think we are at a much better place than we were. Now I hope and I pray that our country will be able to make a very positive difference in the lives of the Kosovars. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, let me first of all say to my colleague from North Dakota that I am really pleased to join him in this effort, along with Senator Snowe and Senator Johnson. The International Prescription Drug Parity Act makes prescription drugs more affordable for millions of Americans by applying the principles of free trade and competition. I want to give special thanks to a wonderful grassroots citizen organization from Minnesota called the Minnesota Senior Federation. If we had organizations such as this all around the country, we would have such effective citizen politics, and I guarantee we would be passing legislation that would make an enormous positive difference in the lives of the people in our country. This legislation provides relief from price gouging of American consumers by our own pharmaceutical industry. Those who really pay the price are those who are chronically ill. Many of those who are clinically ill are the elderly. It is not uncommon anywhere in our country to run across an elderly couple or single individual who is paying up to 30, 40, or 50 percent of their monthly budget just for prescription drug costs. In my State of Minnesota, only 35 percent of senior citizens have any prescription drug cost coverage at all. This legislation is very simple. I say to Senator Dorgan that what I liked the best about this legislation, and the reason I think it will command widespread support, is its eloquent simplicity. We are just saying that if you have drugs which are FDA approved and manufactured in our country, and now they are in Canada, for example, and cost half of what they cost senior citizens to pay for that drug in our own country, it shouldn't just be the pharmaceutical companies that can bring those drugs back in. You ought to enable pharmacists or distributors to go to Canada and purchase these drugs which have been FDA approved, and then bring them back to our country and sell these drugs at a discount rate for our citizens in our country. This is the best of competition. This is the best of what we mean by free trade. I want to be clear. This legislation will amend the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act. The FDA Commissioner was in Minnesota 2 weeks ago and senior citizens were pressing her on this question. She was cautious. But what she was saying was that we would need some legislation; we would need some change to be able to do what Senator Dorgan is talking about. We would amend this piece of legislation to allow American pharmacists and distributors to import prescription drugs into the United States as long as these drugs meet strict FDA standards. That is it. The FDA isn't directly involved, but the FDA is critically involved in the sense that these drugs have to meet all the FDA standards. This piece of legislation is simple. It is straightforward. It is very proconsumer, very pro-senior citizen, very procompetition, very pro-free trade. As I think about the gatherings that I go to in my State--I bet this applies to New Jersey, I see Senator Torricelli here, and Senator Reed of Rhode Island--anywhere in the country. You can't go to a community meeting, and you can't go in into a cafe and meet with people without having people talk about the price of prescription drugs. It is just prohibitively expensive. This piece of legislation will make an enormous difference. It could be that there is some opposition to this piece of legislation. I can see some vested economic interests who may figure out reasons to be opposed to it, but I will say that this piece of legislation would go a long way in dealing with the problem of price gouging right now and making sure that these prescription drugs that can be so important to the health of senior citizens, the people in the disabilities community and other citizens as well that they will be able to purchase these drugs, and they will be able to afford these drugs, which can make an enormous difference in improving the quality of their health. I introduce this legislation, along with Senator Dorgan, and we are joined by Senator Johnson and Senator Snowe. I believe we will have strong bipartisan support for this bill. Mr. President, how much time do we have left?