Paul Wellstone

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. I have been down here for about an hour and a half. I was under the impression that I would follow Senator Kennedy. I am in opposition to this bill. I was supposed to have an hour to speak. This is the only time, actually, I have.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Thank you. I say to my colleague from Vermont, I will not take up all that time, but my colleague from Virginia asked to speak briefly. So I ask unanimous consent that he be allowed to speak for several minutes, and then I follow him.

Mr. WELLSTONE. These are good friends, but I know Senators' ``short minutes.'' I also have to leave to meet with a lot of students from Minnesota. I ask unanimous consent that my colleague from Virginia be allowed to speak for a few short minutes and then my colleague from Connecticut, who asked to speak, be allowed to speak for a few ``short minutes,'' after which I will be able to speak.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Emilia Beskind be allowed floor privileges during the duration of the debate.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I am pleased to yield 10 minutes to my colleague. I have to meet with students from Minnesota. I will try to get a chance to respond, but I may have to respond at a later point.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I don't know that I have anything to add to what other Senators have said about the awfulness and terror of what happened in Colorado. I really don't know--as Senator Dodd and Senator Hutchinson have said--what this means in personal terms. I simply say to Senators Nighthorse Campbell and Allard and the people of Colorado, as the Senator from Minnesota, I send my prayers, my love and support. I wish to God that it was within my ability to snap my fingers, or to be able do something to have prevented this from ever happening. I wish I could understand how kids--children--could ever do this. I actually don't know the answer. I certainly agree with colleagues who have talked about measures that try to make it as difficult as possible for kids to get ahold of guns. I do a lot of work in the mental health area. I know it can't do any harm--it can only do good--to see whether we can do better by way of working with kids at a young age, and maybe we can head off kids that are heading in this direction. When such a God-awful act of violence is committed, it is very difficult to understand why. It is very difficult to understand why. I suppose that anything and everything that can be better in a family, should be better in families and better in communities and better in churches and synagogues and mosques, and in legislation that would pass. But for today, I just want to, as a Senator from Minnesota, express my sorrow. I wish yesterday had never happened. Mr. President, I find myself in the position of speaking against this conference report. My colleagues have talked about some things that happened in conference committee that they felt were positive, and I agree with them. I am going to divide my argument up into two parts. Part 1 is sort of to say, I think there is a distinction between flexibility, and I think--having been a community organizer for several decades, I think that the more people are able to make positive things happen at the local and community level, including the school district level, the better. So I think when it comes to the title I program, you really do want decisions about whether or not you put more of the money into teaching assistants, or into community outreach, or into other things--many of those decisions to be made at the local level. I will tell you why I think this Ed-Flex bill legislation is a profound mistake--however well-intentioned those who are proposing it and who have fought for it are, like Senator Wyden here on the floor; it is just an honest difference of opinion. If I am wrong, I will be glad to be wrong. My own feeling is that this piece of legislation will actually be a step backward. The reason I say that is that when we passed the Elementary and Secondary Education Act back in 1965, a lot of sweat and tears went into that. Part of the idea then and over the years--we are talking about a 30- year history here, 30 years plus--is that you wanted to have certain core requirements, certain core standards that had to be met. And in particular, we wanted to make sure that, as a national community, we made a commitment to poor children and that there were certain kinds of core standards that every school district in the land had to meet in this title I program. So I introduced an amendment to the Ed-Flex bill in which I took the basic core requirements and I said, look, under no circumstances are we going to enable a State to allow a school district to be exempt from the following requirements. Let me just read these. This is incredible, what happened on the floor of the Senate. That is why I am going to be the only vote against it, though I wish others would vote against it. What were these core standards that would not be waivable? They are: Provide opportunities for all children to meet changing achievement levels--I will list a few. Provide instruction by highly qualified professional staff. Provide professional development for teachers and aides to enable all children in the school to meet the State student performance standards. Review on an ongoing basis the progress of participating children, and revise the program, if necessary, to provide more assistance to children, to enable them to meet the State student performance standards. This amendment just said, when it comes to the basic core requirements and core protection of title I for all children in America, the heart and soul of what we did with title I, going back to 1965, we weren't going to waive these. No, we weren't, because we were going to make sure that these title I children--even if they are low- income children, we were going to make sure they were going to get good instruction and make sure that every title I program in every school district at least lived up to these standards. Now we have a piece of legislation, with all due respect to all of my colleagues, that allows a State to allow its school district to exempt itself from these requirements. I introduced this amendment which would have straightened out this legislation. It was basically a party vote; it was a straight party vote, really. I am sorry I didn't get more support from Republicans. I am really sorry more Democrats aren't voting against this bill. That is just my own honestly held view. Here is what is so troubling about this. I will try not to be technical. What would have been the harm in keeping these core requirements? Surely, I can tell you the school districts in Minnesota would say, fine, keep that core requirement because this is what we want to do and this is what we do. Why would this core requirement be considered overly bureaucratic or cumbersome or regulatory for any school district in America? The idea that you have highly qualified instruction and you hold children to high standards and you do everything you can to make sure children meet these standards, why would any school district want to be exempt from the core requirements of the title I program? My argument would be that they would not. This would not be a problem--unless you have the potential for abuse. And you do. That is what is going to happen. We have moved away from a kind of value which says that we, as a Nation, have certain kinds of core commitments and beliefs, and one of them is that we are going to make sure there is protection and some commitment to poor children in America when it comes to education. This piece of legislation called Ed-Flex does away with that basic commitment. That is why I will vote against this. That is why I will be proud to be one to vote against this. Mr. President, my second point is a little different. I am going to say this with not bitterness but with some anger. I just want people in the country to know as I get a chance to speak before the Senate, every time I get a chance to speak, I think I am really lucky. I am one of 100 people who gets a chance to speak on the floor of the U.S. Senate. I get to say what I believe is right. I try to marshal evidence from my point of view. I want people in our country to know that not only is this piece of legislation, I think, not a step forward but a great leap backward; it also is a great leap sideways. When I am in schools and I meet with students and I meet with parents--I have been in a school about every 2 weeks for the last 8 years since I was elected to the Senate. I have been in inner-city schools. I have been in rural schools. I have been in suburban schools. I don't meet parents and children or students who talk to me about Ed- Flex. They do not even know what it is. They don't even know what it is. They talk about, ``Senator, this school is crumbling. This school is not an inviting place for us to be. Can't there be some Federal dollars that will enable us to rebuild our crumbling schools?'' Or, ``Senator, you had better believe that with smaller classes teachers could spend more time with us. And the best teachers are teachers who spend time with us.'' Where is the commitment to smaller classes? Or, ``Senator, you want to know the best single thing you could do. You could make sure that somehow we would address this learning gap,'' where so many kids come to school already way behind having never really had the opportunity to have been read to widely, to have really received that kind of intellectual stimulation with the absence of affordable child care, or so little of it is available and they come to school behind. Then they fall further behind. Then they drop out. And then they wind up in prison. Again, I hope I am right about this. I am trying to oversimplify it. But I believe--I read it, I think, in the New York Times, or somewhere--that in the State of California, I think between the ages of 18 to 26, there are five times as many African American young men in prison than in college. That is stunning. Let's not hype this legislation. Let's not pretend like we have done something great which will lead to the dramatic or positive improvement in the lives of children. There is not one cent more for title I. Let me just tell you. In my State of Minnesota, we have schools there where 65 percent of the kids are low income, free or reduced lunch program participants. And they don't get any title I money. They have run out of the money. All over the country there are schools with a huge percentage of kids who could use the additional reading instruction, who could use the additional encouragement. The title I program does great things. There is a lot of good work being done. I assume my other colleagues did this. I met with title I teachers and title I parents. I met with kids around the State of Minnesota. There is a lot of good work being done. Does Ed-Flex add $1 to a program that is severely underfunded? No. Do you want to know what is worse? We are not going to, not with this budget that we have. Let's be clear about this. This program, according to Rand Corporation, is funded at about the 50-percent level. I think the Congressional Research Service said it is at about the 33-percent level. Given the budget resolution that we have and 10 years of tax cuts, we will see who gets the major benefit. And with the money put aside for Social Security and reducing the debt, do you think there is going to be any money that is going to go into increased funds for title I? No. Does this piece of legislation do anything by way of making child care more affordable? No. Does it do anything about the Head Start program? No. The Head Start Program has served--I can't even remember now. I had the figure. I spoke to a national gathering in Minnesota, a great group of people. I think the Head Start Program has served maybe 17 million children since 1965. Do you know that the Head Start Program, the goal of which is to give a head start to kids who come from impoverished backgrounds, isn't even funded at a 50-percent level? Do you know that with Early Head Start, Mr. President, which is ages under 3, 3 and under, the most important years for development, do you know how many of the 3 million children who are eligible for some Head Start help so they get a head start and do better, do you know how much funding we have for them? One percent. I would love it if somebody would come out here on the floor of the Senate--I would actually give up the rest of my time--and say, ``You are wrong, Paul. Given the budget resolution that we passed, we are going to be committing more money to Early Head Start. We are going to be committing huge amounts of money to making sure there is good child care for children before kindergarten.'' We are not going to do it at all. In fact, with this budget, we will probably end up cutting it before it is all over. Mr. President, here is where we can be a player. We can have Ed-Flex. I think it is a big step backward. I have explained why. I don't know why colleagues are not willing to make this standard. We shouldn't allow a State to allow a school district to waive it. There is a real danger here. We are taking away some protection for poor children. We are doing that. That is not a step forward. Frankly, if we want to be a player, when you talk to your people back in your States, especially when you are talking to the people who are involved in public education, they say you can be a player in prekindergarten. You, the Federal Government, could, out of your huge Government budget, be allocating some resources back to our communities for affordable child care, to fully fund Head Start. You could make a huge difference so that children come to kindergarten ready to learn and do better. We are not going to do it. We are going to pass something called Ed-Flex and pretend like this is some great step forward. This applies perhaps more to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle than my colleague from Oregon, who is constantly committed to more funding. He has a strong commitment to more funding for these programs. I want to be real clear about what we are doing and not doing today. I don't want us to get away with a piece of legislation that we pass that is heralded as some great step forward when we don't really do what we should be doing. Mr. President, we talk about law enforcement. Talk to the community people, and they tell you everywhere that there are too many kids who come from families where both parents are working, or where a single parent is working. There are no after-school programs with positive things for them to do. There are not the community programs, the community-based programs. I hear it everywhere. In this budget, which is going to lead to these appropriations bills, are we going to make any kind of major investment of resources so we are going to have some of these afterschool programs, some of this afterschool care for kids for children? No. Are there first and second and third graders who go home and there is no one there after school, sometimes in very dangerous neighborhoods? Yes, there are. I have met with them. Are there kids who go home and don't play outside even when it is a beautiful day because their parents tell them, ``Go home, lock the door, don't take any phone calls?'' Yes. Are we doing anything in the Senate about making any kind of investment of resources? Is the majority party doing that? No. There was a woman named Fannie Lou Hamer. I wished I could have met her. She was a great civil rights activist from Mississippi. Fannie Lou Hamer said once, ``I am so sick and tired of being sick and tired.'' I am sick and tired of photo opportunity politics. I am sick and tired of the breed of political person who wants to have their picture taken next to children, and how we all say we are for education. We all say we are for children. I look at the White House budget. They are pathetic. I look at our budget; the majority party's is even worse. I, frankly, see very little commitment to making sure that we have equal opportunity for every child in America. This Ed-Flex bill doesn't do one thing to provide equal opportunity for every child in America. Worse, and let me repeat it, we could have had all the flexibility in the world, but for some reason when it came to the basic core protections and core requirements of the title I program--making sure there are highly qualified instructional staff, making sure kids are held to high standards, making sure we help the kids who are falling behind--my colleagues on the other side of the aisle didn't want to have this basic core requirement. Without that core requirement, we don't have that core protection. I will finish my remarks in both a positive way and in a not-so- positive way. I want to again say to the title I teachers and the title I education people in Minnesota--I spent more time with them--I deeply appreciate the work being done and I do not want a misinterpretation of my vote against this bill as not being in support of your work. Let me read some wonderful testimonials from students, parents and teachers at the Garfield Elementary School in Brainerd, MN. I love reading really much. When I grow up I'm gonna be a teacher. When I'm a teacher, I'm gonna read a lot of books to my children. When in college, I'm gonna read tons of books and books. Right now I'm in second grade. This class has helped me with reading and writing. I like this class because it's fun and I'm 10 going on 11. Some of the spelling is not perfect but the sentiment is wonderful. Reading and writing help you get a job. Make that a good job. My favorite thing that we've done is when we're drawing a picture and characters from our book. I like the 5 minute word tests. My highest score was 28 and I'm smart. I love it when children believe they are something. That is good. That is the way it should be. Here is a statement from an educational assistant at Garfield School: To whom it may concern: Every fall at the start of the new school year I get my list of title I children that need a little extra help in the classroom. I know I can help them. Every spring when the school year ends, I know I have helped these children. I know title I works when the light bulb goes on after that child gets that math problem we have been working on. I know that title I works when that child is reading and understands what he reads. They can write a story that makes sense. Please keep the money for title I just for title I. Title I money pays for my job, but it is also something very dear to my heart. When I see a child get it, I know it works. Mr. President, all over the United States of America there are schools with 30, 40, 50, 60, 70 percent low-income children that don't get any title I money because we have so severely underfunded this program. This legislation does not increase one dime, and we are not going to increase one dime for title I--not given this budget that we have. In addition, when it comes to how we as a nation can renew and live up to our vow that there will be equal opportunity for every child in America, it is not here in this legislation. It is not here to make sure that the children come to kindergarten ready to learn. It is not hear to rebuild crumbling schools. It is not here for smaller class sizes. It is not here to make sure we have better teachers. It is not here to make sure that we do better on after school programs. It is not here to make sure there is affordable housing. It is not here for child nutrition programs. It is not here at all. And I want to say on the floor of the Senate, I don't believe it will be here in this Senate. I don't think the majority party will move on this agenda. Sometimes I worry a little bit about my party, as well. I will be the only vote against this legislation. If I am wrong, I am sure my colleagues--Senator Wyden and Senator Jeffords, both good Senators, real good Senators--will tell me a few years from now, You were mistaken. By not keeping that language in on the core requirement--that is what I am focused on. We didn't create any loophole. We didn't take a step backwards. This legislation didn't fail poor children. If they can tell me I'm wrong, I will be glad to be wrong. Today I shall vote no. Today I shall wonder why more colleagues aren't voting no. Today I sound the alarm that I believe this piece of legislation is profoundly mistaken. That is my honest view. I am sorry to be so critical of my colleagues' proposal because I respect their work, but I cannot support this legislation. How much time do I have remaining?

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, we had a gathering in the State of Minnesota on Sunday afternoon. It started about 1 p.m. Joel Klein, who heads the Antitrust Division of the Justice Department, was gracious enough to come. Mike Dunn, who is Assistant Secretary for Agriculture, was gracious enough to come. This will just be 5 minutes' worth, because I am going to be calling on colleagues, especially from the Midwest and the West, to start coming to the floor every day and talking about what is happening to farmers and what is happening in agriculture. We have to speak out, and we have to turn the pressure up for action. During spring planting season, Sunday afternoon--I think the Chair knows this as well as I do--to have somewhere around 800 farmers come was unbelievable. It was an unbelievable turnout of farmers. And there is a very clear reason why. Many of them from Minnesota, but a huge delegation from Missouri, South Dakota, North Dakota, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Nebraska, Wisconsin, Colorado, these farmers came because they are confronted with the fierce urgency of now. They came because time is not neutral for them, time rushes on, and they can work 20 hours a day--and they do--and they can be the best managers in the world, and they cannot survive. There was a focus to this gathering, and it was basically about the whole problem of conglomerates having muscled their way to the dinner table to the point where there isn't the kind of competition we need. There was a call for antitrust action. What farmers were saying was: These conglomerates have muscled their way to the dinner table and they have exercised their raw economic and political power over us as producers and over consumers and over taxpayers. You have our grain farmers going under, record low prices. Then a headline in the Star Tribune on Saturday: ``Cargill profits from decline in farm prices, 53 percent jump in earnings expected''--how hog farmers are going under and yet the packers are in hog heaven. Everywhere the farmers look, they have a few large firms, whether it be dairy, whether it be livestock producers, whether it be grain farmers, a few large firms that dominate well over 50 percent of the market. What the farmers were calling for was strong antitrust action. Joel Klein was honest. He said: I wouldn't be here if I didn't take this seriously, and you will have to judge me by my deeds. I so appreciated his coming out. There was a lot of pressure on Mike Dunn and USDA and Secretary Glickman to do more by way of antitrust action. It was much appreciated. But I say, Mr. President, that the farmers, with considerable justification, want to put some free enterprise back into the food industry. Farmers, with considerable justification, see a direct correlation between monopoly power and a few large, giant firms that are making record profits while they go under. They want to see antitrust action. All they are asking for is a competitive market. By golly, government ought to be on their side. We ought to be seeing stronger antitrust action. The other thing I have to say--we have one bill, S. 19, on which Senator Daschle is taking the lead, which talks about full public disclosure of pricing, which is so important to livestock producers--we ought to know what these packers are paying our livestock producers; we ought to have public disclosure on pricing. In addition, we ought to deal with the monopoly power and have some antitrust action taken so farmers have a chance to compete. I have to say to colleagues, yes, it is crop insurance reform that we are talking about. But the other thing we are going to have to do is revisit this Freedom to Farm, which I have always called the ``freedom to fail'' bill. I don't even want to point the finger. We can talk about what works with Freedom to Farm, but it seems to me that here the evidence is crystal clear that one thing has happened for sure--there is absolutely no stability anymore when it comes to farm income. And while the large conglomerates with huge amounts of capital can weather these mad fluctuations in price, our family farmers can't. They aren't getting anywhere near the cost of production. We have to focus on how we can get the price up and have some farm income for family farmers, and how we can take on some of these conglomerates so family farmers have a fair shake by way of getting a decent price. As a Senator from the Midwest where we still have a family farm structure in agriculture that we are trying to hold on to, it is so important for our rural communities, so important for family farmers, so important for safe, affordable food for consumers, so important for the environment. This is a historic struggle. I hope Senators from the farm states will be coming to the floor every day to speak out about this until we have some strong action that will be on behalf of family farmers. They need the support. They deserve the support. And the Senate and the Congress ought to be taking action. I yield the floor. I thank my colleague.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Angad Bhalla, who is an intern in my office, be granted the privilege of the floor today during debate.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I actually came to the floor to speak about the crisis in agriculture and what is happening in the Midwest, but I want to respond to some of the comments my colleagues have made, although I will be doing this extemporaneously, and I will be thinking out loud, but I hope I will be thinking deeply. Mr. President, I agree with my colleague from Nebraska, I agree with all my colleagues who have spoken on the floor about the importance of accountability. I remember previously coming to the floor before we took a recess where it looked as if we might be taking military action in Kosovo--it wasn't clear--and saying I thought we needed to have a full debate and I would support that military action. I agree with my colleague about the history and how it will judge us. I saw what Milosevic did in Bosnia. I saw enough misery and refugee camps to last me a lifetime. And I certainly do not want to be in a position to have our country, and other countries, turn their gaze away from the systematic slaughter and massacre and murder of people and driving people out of their country, albeit, unfortunately, I think Milosevic, up to date, has been able to do much of that. Here is where I just want to express a few concerns, although I think probably later on we will have the debate. This debate probably does not start today, but since I am on the floor I do want to raise a few concerns. First of all, in the here and now, I think--and I will get a chance this afternoon to put some questions to Secretary Albright--as long as we are talking about stopping the slaughter and given the headlines and the stories in today's papers of Milosevic stopping people from being able to leave the country, we do need to think about these internally displaced refugees and how we can get some relief to them. I still, in my own mind, do not quite understand why we are not doing airlifting, why we are not getting supplies to them. I think it is a difficult question, it could be loss of life. But, again, I say to my colleagues, I want to press very hard on the question of whether or not we should be airlifting some humanitarian relief to people who are obviously going to starve to death otherwise. I am trying to understand why we are not doing that now. Secondly, in the prosecution of this war, I voted that we conduct the airstrikes. I was hoping we would be able to do much more by way of stopping this slaughter, but I raise the question of why we are not conducting more of the airstrikes in Kosovo. I say this to my colleagues on the floor. I really believe that. And I worry about this. I have to say it on the floor of the Senate. Pretty soon we run out of targets in Serbia. And to the extent that we run out of targets and continue with an expanded air war, there are going to be innocent people who will die, which is very difficult for me. I think we get to a point where we don't want to undercut the moral claim of what we are doing. I believe we are trying to do the right thing, but I do not understand why we are not prosecuting more of this air war and more of these airstrikes in Kosovo. We are talking about what we need to do now. I do not understand all of the decisionmaking, but I guess in my own mind, I want to press on that question, because it seems to me there is a direct correlation between our being able to do that and whether or not other means will be necessary, as I look at this resolution, and, moreover, whether it doesn't make far more sense to do that. Again, I know there are risks involved, but at the same time I worry about the sort of airstrikes focused on Belgrade and other cities as opposed to Kosovo. Finally, I say today that I would prefer to hear more discussion. My colleague from Nebraska--you don't know people well, but you just have a feeling about them--is somebody I really like and respect. That is just all there is to it, period. Everything he says I take as being said in the very best of good faith, very much a part of good faith, with complete sincerity and conviction and knowledge. I would like to hear in this Chamber more discussion about diplomacy, about where it fits in. I think it is far more important than has been discussed today that we really ask the Russians to be a part of a diplomatic solution. I know we are talking to them about being part, eventually, of some kind of peacekeeping force. I think, by the way, it will not just be a NATO force. I heard my colleagues list that as an objective. I do not think that is going to happen. I don't think it will be a NATO force; I think it will be a very different peacekeeping force. More than just asking the Russians what they will be a part of, I believe the Russians are in a key position to help forge a diplomatic solution as an alternative to an ever expanding war, consistent with what I believe should be our objectives which are stopping this slaughter of people and people having a chance to go back to their country. I want to see the emphasis on the military action we are taking but also on the diplomatic front. I do not hear that today and it concerns me. I say to my colleagues that when I see language which talks about ``to use all necessary force and other means,'' it just sounds too broad and too open-ended to me, as a Senator. I am skeptical of such language. There are many answers to many questions that I will pose in debate and discussion. There are many questions I have about this today. I have expressed some of my reservations about this resolution, and I do believe we should have Senator Hagel in the discussion and the debate that is called for. I think it is important. Otherwise, I think we do abdicate our responsibility, whatever decisions we arrive at. I commend the Senator for it, but I have expressed some of my reservations.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I thank you. I think what I will do is pick up on the comments of my colleague from Washington because otherwise you just come to the floor and you have something that is well rehearsed; and it is better, I think, to respond to what other Senators have said. That makes for more of a debate, though I find it frustrating to speak on the floor of the Senate because it is sometimes hard to engage in debate. On the question of spending money more wisely, the tax cuts that my colleague talks about, he mentioned the first 5 years, $143 billion over 5 years. It will be $778 billion over 10 years. It is backloaded. It is really not what I would actually call fiscally responsible or very conservative. The theory is to get the money back to the people. ``You can spend it more wisely.'' Here is my question. I do not know about Illinois, but in the State of Minnesota, only 35 percent of senior citizens, 35 percent of Medicare recipients--there are probably close to 700,000 Medicare recipients in our State--have any prescription drug benefit coverage at all, only 35 percent. It is not uncommon to talk to an elderly woman or a couple and find that they are spending up to 30, 40 percent of their monthly budget just on prescription drugs. They cannot afford it. So we have a budget resolution here that says to the senior citizens in Minnesota, ``Spend your money more wisely. If you can't afford prescription drug costs, spend your money more wisely.'' There is a disconnect here. This is why this Republican budget resolution is going to be in big-time trouble with people in this country. It does not make any sense to people. To senior citizens in Minnesota, this budget resolution says, ``When it comes to prescription drug costs that put you under, spend your money more wisely.'' When it comes to family farmers who have been buffeted about, and many of them destroyed by the ``freedom to fail'' bill--a great bill for multinational corporations, a terrible bill for family farmers--when we come to the floor and say we have to get farm income up, we have to take the cap off the loan rate, and then it gets scored by CBO, we are told we cannot afford to do it. The Republican response to the family farmers in Minnesota who are going under is, ``Spend your money more wisely, because we're going to give you a tax cut that will enable you to spend your money more wisely,'' while people go under. Mr. President, I meet families in Minnesota and families all across the country when I get a chance to travel. And one of their top issues, one of the most important issues they have, is affordable child care. It is a huge issue, not just for low-income, not just working-income; I am talking middle-income families. He is 30; she is 28; they have two children. It costs them $12,000, $13,000 a year for child care--not to mention the fact that way too high a percentage of these child-care centers really are not that great. Some of them are downright dangerous. The care is not necessarily developmental child care, and the people who work there are severely underpaid. So what are we saying to working families in our country, in Minnesota, in New Jersey, or in Illinois, who can't afford child care? We are saying, ``Spend your money more wisely.'' I have news for you: For a typical family, a young couple making $35,000 a year, with $12,000 child care expenses, this does not work. What about for the children? What about for the children? I am glad to hear of my colleague's concern for Social Security. And I am glad to hear that the Democrats are also focused on Medicare, unlike my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. But in all due respect, it is our children who are going to be in the next century. The next millennium is going to belong to our children. And we have close to one out of every four children under the age of 3 growing up poor in our country, and one out of two children of color under the age of 3 growing up poor in our country today; and because of this budget resolution, with all of these tax cuts and all of these caps, we are going to see a lot of these domestic programs taking a hit of about $43 billion. So what are we saying? We are going to cut Head Start? We are going to cut child nutrition programs? We are going to cut the Women, Infants, and Children Program? Where are we going to cut? I do not understand the distorted priorities of this budget resolution. There is an old Yiddish proverb that says: ``You can't dance at two weddings at the same time.'' You can't have all of these backloaded tax cuts, the vast majority of which are going to flow to people with very high incomes--that has always been the record of my Republican colleagues-- and make your investment in the Pentagon, and do what you say you are going to do for Social Security, and at the same time make any investment in the health and skills and intellect and character of children. We are going to cut programs for children. By the way, as to ``Spend your money wisely,'' do not tell some child who is poor--the poverty being involuntary--that he or she should spend their money more wisely. They do not have any money to spend wisely. I doubt whether we are going to cut the National Institutes of Health budget, but we are certainly not going to increase it. So to my colleague, who is no longer on the floor, talking about ``Spend your money wisely,'' you say to people who are struggling with Alzheimer's or breast cancer or Parkinson's disease or diabetes--and I can list many other illnesses as well--all sorts of people come to Washington, and they try to get more money spent for research for the cure to these diseases, to the point where we have one group of people struggling with an illness pitted against another group of people struggling with an illness. It is just horrible. And we are saying to these people, we are going to have these backloaded tax cuts over the next 10 years--``Spend your money more wisely.'' In all due respect, I think, even though the Chair of the Budget Committee is one of the Senators whom I have the most respect for--he is really kind of my working partner when it comes to the mental health work--this budget resolution and the priorities of this budget resolution are not consistent with what I would call the sort of basic core values of the American people, of people in this country, of people in Minnesota. People want to see some investment in children. They do not want to see Head Start cut. They do not want to see WIC cut. They do not want to see backloaded tax cuts over the next 10 years, most of it going to high-income, wealthy people. And people get it; they know that we have to be fiscally responsible. They want the deficits gone. They want to see us focus on Social Security to make sure it is solvent. We know we absolutely should be committed to Medicare. And then with what we have, we ought to make the kind of investments that make sense for our Nation. Where do we want to be in the year 2050? If you want to have a solvent Social Security system, then you want to have the children who are small today as adults who are independent, productive, highly trained, morally caring men and women. And you are not going to get there if you are going to leave one-fourth of the children of America behind. Where is the investment in these children? Where is the investment in these families? Where do we want to be in the year 2050? On every single issue I can think of, Social Security, Medicare, our country doing well in the international economy, economic performance, economic growth, reducing crime, reducing violence, you would want to make sure that we do our very best by all of our children in the United States of America. And you know what? This budget resolution fails that test, and therefore I will vote against it. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Specter, who will be coming back here--I promised him I would do this for him--be allowed to speak for up to 15 minutes in morning business.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, this is an inquiry. I gather my colleagues are on the floor, the Senator from Missouri and others, to speak on the budget; is that correct?

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I will wait to get some time in morning business to introduce a bill with Senator Domenici. Why don't we go on with the process.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce the Mental Health Equitable Treatment Act of 1999, a bit that will ensure that private health insurance companies provide the same level of coverage for mental illness as they do for other diseases. This bill will be a major step toward ending the discrimination against people who suffer from mental illness. For too long, mental illness has been stigmatized, or viewed as a character flaw, rather than as the serious disease that it is. A cloak of secrecy has surrounded this disease, and people with mental illness are often ashamed and afraid to seek treatment, for fear that they will be seen as admitting a weakness in character. We have all seen portrayals of mentally ill people as somehow different, as dangerous, or as frightening. Such stereotypes only reinforce the biases against people with mental illness. Can you imagine this type of portrayal of someone who has a cardiac problem, or who happens to carry a gene that predisposes them to diabetes? Although mental health research has well-established the biological, genetic, and behavioral components of many of the forms of serious mental illness, the illness is still stigmatized as somehow less important or serious than other illnesses. Too often, we try to push the problem away, deny coverage, or blame those with the illness for having the illness. We forget that someone with mental illness can look just like the person we see in the mirror, or the person who is sitting next to us on a plane. It can be our mother, or brother, or son, or daughter. It can be one of us. We have all known someone with a serious mental illness, within our families or our circle of friends, or in public life. Many people have courageously come forward to speak about their personal experiences with their illness, to help us all understand better the effects of this illness on a person's life, and I commend them for their courage. The statistics concerning mental illness, and the state of health care coverage for adults and children with this disease are startling, and disturbing. One severe mental illness affecting millions of Americans is major depression. The National Institute of Mental Health, a NIH research institute, within the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, describes serious depression as a critical public health problem. More than 18 million people in the United States will suffer from a depressive illness this year, and many will be unnecessarily incapacitated for weeks or months, because their illness goes untreated. The cost to the Nation in 1990 was estimated to be between $30-$44 billion. The suffering of depressed people and their families is immeasurable. Depressive disorders are not the normal ups and downs everyone experiences. They are illnesses that affect mood, body, behavior, and mind. Depressive disorders interfere with individual and family functioning. Without treatment, the person with a depressive disorder is often unable to fulfill the responsibilities of spouse or parent, worker or employer, friend or neighbor. Available medications and psychological treatments, alone or in combination, can help 80 percent of those with depression. But without adequate treatment, future episodes of depression may continue or worsen in severity. Yet, the steady decline in the quality and breadth of health care coverage is truly disturbing. The results of a major survey of employer-provided health plans was published in 1998 by the Hay Group, an independent benefits consulting firm. The Hay Report showed a major decline in benefits in the last decade: Employer-provided mental health benefits decreased 54%--while benefits for general health decreased only 7%; Even before this erosion occurred, mental health benefits made up only 6% of total medical benefits paid by employers. Today--that has been cut in half--it is down to 3%; The number of plans restricting hospitalization for mental disorders increased by 20%; Descriptions of benefit limits themselves are misleading. Although plans may say that they allow 30 days for hospitalization, this is rarely approved. In 1996, the average length of stay was 8\1/2\ days, down from 17 in 1991. In 1988, most insurance plans allowed 50 therapy sessions per years. In 1997, the average number was 20. A 1998 study published by Health Affairs found that between 1991 and 1995, HMO enrollees were twice as likely to encounter limits on psychiatric visits, and about three times as likely to have separate, and higher, copayments than for general medical health care. No one, of course, expects coverage of any illness to cost nothing. But what we do know is that fears of spiraling costs for mental health treatment are unfounded. Studies from HHS that have examined the effects of mental health and substance abuse treatment parity have shown that full parity for these benefits would be just slightly higher than current premiums. Most reports, like the one requested by Congress from the National Advisory Mental Health Counsel, showed that when mental health coverage is managed, either moderately or tightly, that premium increases can be as low as 1%. These costs are so low. And the cost of NOT treating is so high-- especially when one looks at the toll that untreated mental illness takes on individuals, families, employers, corporations, social service systems, and criminal justice systems. I have seen first hand in the juvenile corrections system what happens when mental illness is criminalized, when youth with mental illness are incarcerated for exhibiting symptoms of their illness. To treat ill people as criminals is outrageous is outrageous and immoral. We must make treatment for this illness as available and as routine as treatment for any other disease. The discrimination must stop. Our bill includes parity for hospital day and outpatient visits for all mental illnesses. Additionally, for many of the most severe adult and child mental illnesses, the bill establishes full parity, i.e., parity for copayments, deductibles, hospital day, and outpatient visit benefits. The bill also provides protection for non-physician providers, and for states with stronger parity bills; it also includes a small business exemption, and eliminates the sunset provision and the 1% exemption from the 1996 Mental Health Parity Act. Covered services include inpatient treatment; non-hospital residential treatment; outpatient treatment, including screening and assessment, medication management, individual, group and family counseling; and prevention services, including health education and individual and group counseling to encourage the reduction of risk factors for mental illness. The Mental Health Equitable Treatment Act of 1999 provides for major improvements in coverage for mental illness by private health insurers. It does not require that mental health benefits be part of a health benefits package, but establishes a requirement for parity in coverage for those plans that offer mental health benefits. This bill goes a long way toward our bipartisan goal: that mental illness be treated like any other disease in health care coverage. Mr. President, the Mental Health Equitable Treatment Act of 1999 is designed to take a large step toward ending the suffering of those with mental illness who have been unfairly discriminated against in their health coverage. We must end this discrimination.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce the Mental Health Equitable Treatment Act of 1999, a bit that will ensure that private health insurance companies provide the same level of coverage for mental illness as they do for other diseases. This bill will be a major step toward ending the discrimination against people who suffer from mental illness. For too long, mental illness has been stigmatized, or viewed as a character flaw, rather than as the serious disease that it is. A cloak of secrecy has surrounded this disease, and people with mental illness are often ashamed and afraid to seek treatment, for fear that they will be seen as admitting a weakness in character. We have all seen portrayals of mentally ill people as somehow different, as dangerous, or as frightening. Such stereotypes only reinforce the biases against people with mental illness. Can you imagine this type of portrayal of someone who has a cardiac problem, or who happens to carry a gene that predisposes them to diabetes? Although mental health research has well-established the biological, genetic, and behavioral components of many of the forms of serious mental illness, the illness is still stigmatized as somehow less important or serious than other illnesses. Too often, we try to push the problem away, deny coverage, or blame those with the illness for having the illness. We forget that someone with mental illness can look just like the person we see in the mirror, or the person who is sitting next to us on a plane. It can be our mother, or brother, or son, or daughter. It can be one of us. We have all known someone with a serious mental illness, within our families or our circle of friends, or in public life. Many people have courageously come forward to speak about their personal experiences with their illness, to help us all understand better the effects of this illness on a person's life, and I commend them for their courage. The statistics concerning mental illness, and the state of health care coverage for adults and children with this disease are startling, and disturbing. One severe mental illness affecting millions of Americans is major depression. The National Institute of Mental Health, a NIH research institute, within the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, describes serious depression as a critical public health problem. More than 18 million people in the United States will suffer from a depressive illness this year, and many will be unnecessarily incapacitated for weeks or months, because their illness goes untreated. The cost to the Nation in 1990 was estimated to be between $30-$44 billion. The suffering of depressed people and their families is immeasurable. Depressive disorders are not the normal ups and downs everyone experiences. They are illnesses that affect mood, body, behavior, and mind. Depressive disorders interfere with individual and family functioning. Without treatment, the person with a depressive disorder is often unable to fulfill the responsibilities of spouse or parent, worker or employer, friend or neighbor. Available medications and psychological treatments, alone or in combination, can help 80 percent of those with depression. But without adequate treatment, future episodes of depression may continue or worsen in severity. Yet, the steady decline in the quality and breadth of health care coverage is truly disturbing. The results of a major survey of employer-provided health plans was published in 1998 by the Hay Group, an independent benefits consulting firm. The Hay Report showed a major decline in benefits in the last decade: Employer-provided mental health benefits decreased 54%--while benefits for general health decreased only 7%; Even before this erosion occurred, mental health benefits made up only 6% of total medical benefits paid by employers. Today--that has been cut in half--it is down to 3%; The number of plans restricting hospitalization for mental disorders increased by 20%; Descriptions of benefit limits themselves are misleading. Although plans may say that they allow 30 days for hospitalization, this is rarely approved. In 1996, the average length of stay was 8\1/2\ days, down from 17 in 1991. In 1988, most insurance plans allowed 50 therapy sessions per years. In 1997, the average number was 20. A 1998 study published by Health Affairs found that between 1991 and 1995, HMO enrollees were twice as likely to encounter limits on psychiatric visits, and about three times as likely to have separate, and higher, copayments than for general medical health care. No one, of course, expects coverage of any illness to cost nothing. But what we do know is that fears of spiraling costs for mental health treatment are unfounded. Studies from HHS that have examined the effects of mental health and substance abuse treatment parity have shown that full parity for these benefits would be just slightly higher than current premiums. Most reports, like the one requested by Congress from the National Advisory Mental Health Counsel, showed that when mental health coverage is managed, either moderately or tightly, that premium increases can be as low as 1%. These costs are so low. And the cost of NOT treating is so high-- especially when one looks at the toll that untreated mental illness takes on individuals, families, employers, corporations, social service systems, and criminal justice systems. I have seen first hand in the juvenile corrections system what happens when mental illness is criminalized, when youth with mental illness are incarcerated for exhibiting symptoms of their illness. To treat ill people as criminals is outrageous is outrageous and immoral. We must make treatment for this illness as available and as routine as treatment for any other disease. The discrimination must stop. Our bill includes parity for hospital day and outpatient visits for all mental illnesses. Additionally, for many of the most severe adult and child mental illnesses, the bill establishes full parity, i.e., parity for copayments, deductibles, hospital day, and outpatient visit benefits. The bill also provides protection for non-physician providers, and for states with stronger parity bills; it also includes a small business exemption, and eliminates the sunset provision and the 1% exemption from the 1996 Mental Health Parity Act. Covered services include inpatient treatment; non-hospital residential treatment; outpatient treatment, including screening and assessment, medication management, individual, group and family counseling; and prevention services, including health education and individual and group counseling to encourage the reduction of risk factors for mental illness. The Mental Health Equitable Treatment Act of 1999 provides for major improvements in coverage for mental illness by private health insurers. It does not require that mental health benefits be part of a health benefits package, but establishes a requirement for parity in coverage for those plans that offer mental health benefits. This bill goes a long way toward our bipartisan goal: that mental illness be treated like any other disease in health care coverage. Mr. President, the Mental Health Equitable Treatment Act of 1999 is designed to take a large step toward ending the suffering of those with mental illness who have been unfairly discriminated against in their health coverage. We must end this discrimination.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, can we have order?

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, can we have order? We cannot hear.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, before I start, I ask unanimous consent that Jodi Niehoff, who works in my office, be granted the privilege of the floor during the duration of this debate.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I make this appeal to my colleagues as a Senator from Minnesota: First of all, please get this disaster relief bill through, at least get the agricultural part of it through. If we don't get that, our FSA offices run out of loan money. They will have to let people go, and we will not be able to provide people with the loan money that they need and they are going to go under. Please make that happen. We should not go home without that happening. Second of all, I rise to support this amendment. Time is not neutral. It rushes on. It is not on the side of family farmers in our States. I have never seen it this bad in all the years we have lived in Minnesota. People are in real economic pain. It was the wheat farmers in the northwest. Now it is the other grain farmers. It is the dairy farmers in southern Minnesota. The hog producers are facing extinction while the packers are in hog heaven. We have to get the price up. We have to get farm income up. I think this amendment, which speaks to taking the cap off the loan rate, is the right thing to do. Price, price, price. Get farm income up and get it up now. This is a critically important crisis amendment. If Senators are on the side of family farmers and a family farm structure of agriculture, which is good for farmers and rural America and consumers, they will vote for this amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I will get a chance to speak more on this. This is the critical vote.

Mr. WELLSTONE. That is fine.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, let me thank Senator Bayh for his words. It is an honor to be on the floor while you are speaking, and I thank you.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I will be glad to, as long as I retain the floor.