Paul Wellstone

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I have not heard my colleague from Utah respond to this. I haven't heard one colleague on the other side of the aisle respond to the data or to the facts. I have heard them try to hide behind the argument that raising the minimum wage was going to lead to a loss of jobs. Since increasing the minimum wage in the prior year, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported 517,000 new jobs. Sometimes we do not want to know what we do not want to know. I have not heard any refutation of that at all. So my question is, Why in the world would we not value work and give dignity to work by raising the minimum wage, which is so important to women in the workplace, so important to children, so important to families? Then my colleague from Utah moves on to another argument concerning child care. In all due respect, that is what is so sad about this debate. If we really wanted to do our best by families and value families, we would be raising the minimum wage, we would be investing in affordable child care--which this Republican-led Senate will not do. We would have universal health care coverage, which this Republican-led Senate will not do. In child care, I hope the tradeoff is not to say that we are not going to be able to provide good child care for children unless we continue to devalue the work of men and women in child care. Many of them barely make minimum wage or barely above it. That is why we have a 40-percent turnover every year. This is not acceptable. We can raise the minimum wage, which is important for women, important for these working families, important for children, important for young people who are trying to work their way through school. We can invest in the health and skills and intellect and character by investing in affordable child care. We can invest in health care. This Republican-led Senate has done none of these things. In all due respect, in all due respect, the reason that 75 or 80 percent of the people in the country believe we should raise the minimum wage is because they have some sense of fairness and justice. We raised our salaries by $30,000 just a few years ago. We gave ourselves a cost-of-living increase that amounts to a $1.50 increase per hour, we make $130,000-plus and say we need to make that. And yet, we will not raise the minimum wage from $5.15 to $6.15 over a 2-year period so people who work hard will not be poor in America and their children will not be poor? This is really outrageous. I hope we get a majority vote.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, right now in our country there are about 10 million children--of course, when I talk about children, I am talking about their parents as well--who are eligible for good developmental child care opportunities. As it turns out, we provide assistance to 1.4 million out of this 10 million. In other words, fully 86 percent of children who are eligible to receive some assistance so that they will get better child care in those critical early years receive no assistance at all. I introduce today this piece of legislation, which I have called the Child Development Act. I have been working on it for the last year and a half. Altogether, over the next 5 years, it calls for $62 billion, about $12 billion--less than 1 percent of the budget--to be invested in the health, skills, intellect and character of our children. About $37.5 billion just increases funding for the Child Care and Development Block Grant Program (CCDBG), which has been a proven success in providing more money so that we can expand child care in our States and provide help to many working families that need this help. In addition, the bill provides funding for improving afterschool programs. We have funds that are set aside to improve the quality of child care. Children Defense Fund studies have shown that six out of seven child care facilities in this country provide only poor-to- mediocre service, and one out of eight centers actually put children at risk. There is additional funding for professional training, for new construction, and I say to my colleagues, there is also funding for loan forgiveness, which is the effort that I have been working on with my colleague, Senator DeWine from Ohio, so that those men and women who do their undergraduate work and receive training in early childhood development, where the wages are so low, at least will receive loan forgiveness which will help them. Finally, there is some $13 billion in tax credits for low- and middle-income working parents to help them afford child care. Research has shown that much of what happens in life depends upon the first three years of development. The brain is so profoundly influenced during this time that the brain of a three-year-old has twice as many synapses (connections between brain cells) as that of her adult parents. The process of brain development is actually one of ``pruning'' out the synapses that one does not need (or more accurately, does not use) from those that become the brains standard ``wiring.'' This is why the first three years of development are so important--this is the time that the brain must develop the wiring that is going to be used for the rest of one's life. According to a report on brain development published by the Families and Work Institute, ``Early care and nurture have a decisive, long lasting impact on how people develop, their ability to learn, and their capacity to control their own emotions.'' If children do not receive proper care before the age of three, they never receive the chance to develop into fully functioning adults. We are not allowing our children a chance in life when we do not provide them with proper care in their early years. If America is to achieve its goal of equal opportunity for our children, we need to start with proper care in their early years. It is a painful statistic then that our youngest citizens are also some of the poorest Americans. One out of every four of our country's 12 million children under the age of three live in poverty. It becomes very difficult to break out of the cycle of poverty if poor children are not allowed to develop into fully functioning adults. Yet many parents in America do not have the option of providing adequate care for their children. For parents who can barely afford rent it is nearly impossible to take advantage of the Family Medical Leave Act, and sacrifice 12 weeks of pay in order to directly supervise a child. Many mothers need to return to work shortly after giving birth and find that the only options open to them are to place their children in care that is substandard, even potentially dangerous--but affordable. According to the Children's Defense Fund, six out of seven child care centers provide only poor to mediocre care, and one in eight centers provide care that could jeopardize children's safety and development. The same study said that one in three home-based care situations could be harmful to a child's development. How can we abide by these statistics? This is a serious problem, and frighteningly widespread. The eligibility levels set for receiving child care aid through the federal Child Care and Development Block Grant (CCDBG) is 85 percent of a state's median income. Nationally, this comes out to about $35,000 for a family of three in 1998. However, according to the Children's defense fund, fully half of all families with young children earn less than $35,000 per year. Half! A family that has two parents working full time at minimum wage earns only $21,400 per year. This is not nearly enough to even dream of adequate child care. Child care costs in the United States for one child in full day care range from $4,000 to $10,000 a year. It is not surprising that, on average, families with incomes under $15,000 a year spend 23 percent of their annual incomes on child care. And in West Virginia, if a family of three makes more than that $15,000, they no longer qualify for child care aid! In fact, thirty-two states do not allow a family of three which earns $25,000 a year (approximately 185 percent of poverty) to qualify for help. Only four states in our nation set eligibility cut offs for receiving child care assistance at 85 percent of median family income, the maximum allowed by federal law. There is obviously not enough funding to support the huge need for child care assistance in our nation, and that is why I am proposing the Child Care Development Act. There is widespread support for expanded investments to improve the affordability and quality of child care. A recent survey of 550 police chiefs found that nine out of ten police chiefs surveyed agreed that ``America could sharply reduce crime if government invested more in programs to help children and youth get a good start'' such as Head Start and child care. Mayors across the country identified child care, more than any other issue, as one of the most pressing issues facing children and families in their communities in 1996 survey. A recent poll found that a bipartisan majority of those polled support increased investments in helping families pay for child care-- specifically, 74% of those polled favor a bill to help low-income and middle-class families pay for child care, including 79% of Democrats, 69% of Republicans, and 76% of Independents. It is clear that many like to talk about supporting our children, and many are in favor of supporting our children, but what action is actually taken? Yes, the addition of new child care dollars in 1996 has helped welfare recipients, but it has done nothing for working, low- income families not receiving TANF. The Children's Defense Fund recommends that Congress pass comprehensive legislation that guarantees at least $20 billion over five years in new funding for the Child Care Development Block Grant (CCDBG). My Child Care Development Act goes beyond this, yet even my bill is just a first step. This bill is designed to provide affordable, quality child care to half of the ten million American children presently in need of subsidized care. It will provide $62.5 billion over 5 years--$12.5 billion a year--nearly three times the amount proposed in the President's most ambitious, and still unprosecuted, proposal. In 1997 the President proposed extending care to 600,000 children from poor families, leaving fully 80% of eligible children without aid. That was the last we heard of it. And it wasn't good enough, anyway. If we are serious about putting parents to work and protecting children, we need to invest more in families and in child care help for them. Enabling families to work and helping children thrive means giving states enough money so that they can set reasonable eligibility levels, let families know that help is available, and take working families off the waiting lists. The Child Care Development Act will require $62.5 billion over five years. There will be several offsets necessary if we are serious about giving children in this country the type of care they need and deserve. Shifting spending from these offsets demonstrates that our true national priority is children, not wasteful military spending and corporate tax loopholes. The offsets that will be necessary are as follows. If we repeal the reductions in the Corporate Minimum Tax from the 1997 Budget Bill, we create $8.2 billion. The elimination of the Special Oil and Gas Depletion Allowance will make room for and additional $4.3 billion. An offset of $.575 billion will come from a repeal of the Enhanced Oil Recovery Credit and an offset of $13.767 billion will come from the elimination of exclusion for Foreign-Earned Income. From these four different offsets in tax provisions a sub total amount of $26.835 is created to spend on child care. Defense Cuts will also be necessary in the amount of $24.4 billion. This will come from canceling the F-22, a plane plagued with troubles, which will free up $19.29 billion, and $5.11 billion will come from a reduction in Nuclear Delivery Systems Within Overall Limits of START II. The remaining offsets can be made by reducing the Intelligence Budget by 5 percent, which would save $6.675 billion; by reducing Military Export Subsidies by $.85 billion; and by canceling the International Space Station, which costs $10.045 billion. All of which, when added together, allows for an additional $68.805 billion to be used to support our children. This is, finally, a child care bill on the same scope as the problem itself. We as a nation are neglecting the most vulnerable and important portion of our society--our children. Here is an ambitious solution to this vast problem that has been plaguing our country. So that we don't have to be a country that just talks about putting our children first. Mr. President, I want to speak a little bit from the heart. We are now at a point in our session where we have maybe 2\1/2\, 3 weeks to go. I think it is a tragedy that, in many ways, we are not involved in the work of democracy. From my point of view as a Senator from Minnesota, the work of democracy is to try to respond and speak to the concerns and circumstances of people's lives. As I travel around Minnesota and travel around the country, I believe that, more than anything else, what families are saying to us is, ``We want to do our very best by our kids, because if we as parents,'' or a single parent, ``can do our best by our kids, we will do our best by our country.'' One of the reasons we--I am talking about the people now in the country--are so disillusioned about our political process, above and beyond all that they hear about every day, which I hate, is that all that is happening is no good for our country. I think the polls show this as well, people are saying, ``Get on with your governing, too; please govern; please be relevant and important to our lives.'' People feel like we are not doing that. I have to say that if we can respond to what most people are talking about, which is how we earn a decent living and how do we give our children the care we know they need and deserve, we will be doing well by people. If we can do everything that we can do as Senators, Democrats and Republicans, and if the private sector plays its role and we also engage in voluntarism and a lot of good things happen at the community level and non-Government organizations, and nonprofits play their role, and I say to Rabbi Shemtov, our guest chaplain today, the religious community needs to play their role: if we all do everything we can to enable parents or a parent to do their best by their kids, then that is the best single thing we can do. What saddens me and also angers me is that all of a sudden, the focus on children is just off the table. We have lost it. It wasn't that many months ago that we were having conferences and we were talking about reports that were coming out and we couldn't stop discussing the development of the brain; how important it is to make sure that we get it right for our children because by age 3, if we don't get it right for them, they are never going to be ready for school and never be ready for life. What happened? What happened to our focus? We have lost our focus. We have lost our way. We are talking a lot about values, and we are talking a lot about moral issues and we should--we should. But isn't it also a moral question or a moral issue that one out of every four children under the age of 3 is growing up poor in America today, and one out of every three children of color under the age of 3 is growing up poor in America today? With our economy still humming along, how can it be that we cannot do better? I don't understand that. I say to the Rabbi and Chaplain, in the words of Rabbi Hillel, ``If not now, when?'' Here we are with 3 weeks to go to this Congress, and we haven't done anything to help families, to help children, to fill their void so that we make sure that every child who comes to kindergarten comes to kindergarten ready to learn. If we are going to talk about education, and we are going to have a discussion about education--maybe we won't on the present course--I think we have to focus on the learning gap. The truth of the matter is, we do quite well for kids in our public schools if they come to kindergarten ready to learn. It is the kids who come to kindergarten not ready to learn for whom we don't do well. I am not trying to take K-12 off the hook. We need to do much better. But couldn't we say that as a national goal we want to make sure that every child who comes to kindergarten comes to kindergarten ready to learn? So that she knows the alphabet. He knows colors and shapes and sizes. She knows how to spell her name. They have been read to widely and they come with the readiness to learn. The Presiding Officer, Senator DeWine, is as committed to children as any Senator in the Senate. He knows what I am saying. This is a cost-neutral bill. I will not go on about this bill's offsets. I cut into some tax loopholes and some subsidies that go to some of the largest corporations in America that do not need it. I raise some questions about whether we need some additional missiles and additional bombers. I redefine national security, and say, yes, we need a strong defense, but we need to take some of the money and invest for children. People can agree or disagree about where I get the money for this. Can't we agree that we take 1 percent of our budget and invest it in the health and skills and character and intellect of our children? They are 100 percent of our future. I must repeat this point. I cannot believe that not that many months ago we were all talking about development of the brain, early childhood development. We were all talking about legislation--we were all talking about how we were going to do something to help parents do better by their kids, and we are not doing that. That is why I introduce this legislation today. I do not think it is a cry in the wilderness, because I hope next year we are going to get this bill enacted. I am going to fight for this. And maybe, if I have a chance--I don't know that I will, given the next 3 weeks--I will bring some of it up as amendments. But we have to start speaking out about this, Mr. President. I say to Senator DeWine, the Presiding Officer, we have to start speaking out about this because we should be doing better.

Mr. WELLSTONE

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

Mr. WELLSTONE. I yield the floor. Mr. GRASSLEY addressed the Chair.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mr. Wellstone pertaining to the introduction of S. 2489 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to speak as in morning business.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, right now in our country there are about 10 million children--of course, when I talk about children, I am talking about their parents as well--who are eligible for good developmental child care opportunities. As it turns out, we provide assistance to 1.4 million out of this 10 million. In other words, fully 86 percent of children who are eligible to receive some assistance so that they will get better child care in those critical early years receive no assistance at all. I introduce today this piece of legislation, which I have called the Child Development Act. I have been working on it for the last year and a half. Altogether, over the next 5 years, it calls for $62 billion, about $12 billion--less than 1 percent of the budget--to be invested in the health, skills, intellect and character of our children. About $37.5 billion just increases funding for the Child Care and Development Block Grant Program (CCDBG), which has been a proven success in providing more money so that we can expand child care in our States and provide help to many working families that need this help. In addition, the bill provides funding for improving afterschool programs. We have funds that are set aside to improve the quality of child care. Children Defense Fund studies have shown that six out of seven child care facilities in this country provide only poor-to- mediocre service, and one out of eight centers actually put children at risk. There is additional funding for professional training, for new construction, and I say to my colleagues, there is also funding for loan forgiveness, which is the effort that I have been working on with my colleague, Senator DeWine from Ohio, so that those men and women who do their undergraduate work and receive training in early childhood development, where the wages are so low, at least will receive loan forgiveness which will help them. Finally, there is some $13 billion in tax credits for low- and middle-income working parents to help them afford child care. Research has shown that much of what happens in life depends upon the first three years of development. The brain is so profoundly influenced during this time that the brain of a three-year-old has twice as many synapses (connections between brain cells) as that of her adult parents. The process of brain development is actually one of ``pruning'' out the synapses that one does not need (or more accurately, does not use) from those that become the brains standard ``wiring.'' This is why the first three years of development are so important--this is the time that the brain must develop the wiring that is going to be used for the rest of one's life. According to a report on brain development published by the Families and Work Institute, ``Early care and nurture have a decisive, long lasting impact on how people develop, their ability to learn, and their capacity to control their own emotions.'' If children do not receive proper care before the age of three, they never receive the chance to develop into fully functioning adults. We are not allowing our children a chance in life when we do not provide them with proper care in their early years. If America is to achieve its goal of equal opportunity for our children, we need to start with proper care in their early years. It is a painful statistic then that our youngest citizens are also some of the poorest Americans. One out of every four of our country's 12 million children under the age of three live in poverty. It becomes very difficult to break out of the cycle of poverty if poor children are not allowed to develop into fully functioning adults. Yet many parents in America do not have the option of providing adequate care for their children. For parents who can barely afford rent it is nearly impossible to take advantage of the Family Medical Leave Act, and sacrifice 12 weeks of pay in order to directly supervise a child. Many mothers need to return to work shortly after giving birth and find that the only options open to them are to place their children in care that is substandard, even potentially dangerous--but affordable. According to the Children's Defense Fund, six out of seven child care centers provide only poor to mediocre care, and one in eight centers provide care that could jeopardize children's safety and development. The same study said that one in three home-based care situations could be harmful to a child's development. How can we abide by these statistics? This is a serious problem, and frighteningly widespread. The eligibility levels set for receiving child care aid through the federal Child Care and Development Block Grant (CCDBG) is 85 percent of a state's median income. Nationally, this comes out to about $35,000 for a family of three in 1998. However, according to the Children's defense fund, fully half of all families with young children earn less than $35,000 per year. Half! A family that has two parents working full time at minimum wage earns only $21,400 per year. This is not nearly enough to even dream of adequate child care. Child care costs in the United States for one child in full day care range from $4,000 to $10,000 a year. It is not surprising that, on average, families with incomes under $15,000 a year spend 23 percent of their annual incomes on child care. And in West Virginia, if a family of three makes more than that $15,000, they no longer qualify for child care aid! In fact, thirty-two states do not allow a family of three which earns $25,000 a year (approximately 185 percent of poverty) to qualify for help. Only four states in our nation set eligibility cut offs for receiving child care assistance at 85 percent of median family income, the maximum allowed by federal law. There is obviously not enough funding to support the huge need for child care assistance in our nation, and that is why I am proposing the Child Care Development Act. There is widespread support for expanded investments to improve the affordability and quality of child care. A recent survey of 550 police chiefs found that nine out of ten police chiefs surveyed agreed that ``America could sharply reduce crime if government invested more in programs to help children and youth get a good start'' such as Head Start and child care. Mayors across the country identified child care, more than any other issue, as one of the most pressing issues facing children and families in their communities in 1996 survey. A recent poll found that a bipartisan majority of those polled support increased investments in helping families pay for child care-- specifically, 74% of those polled favor a bill to help low-income and middle-class families pay for child care, including 79% of Democrats, 69% of Republicans, and 76% of Independents. It is clear that many like to talk about supporting our children, and many are in favor of supporting our children, but what action is actually taken? Yes, the addition of new child care dollars in 1996 has helped welfare recipients, but it has done nothing for working, low- income families not receiving TANF. The Children's Defense Fund recommends that Congress pass comprehensive legislation that guarantees at least $20 billion over five years in new funding for the Child Care Development Block Grant (CCDBG). My Child Care Development Act goes beyond this, yet even my bill is just a first step. This bill is designed to provide affordable, quality child care to half of the ten million American children presently in need of subsidized care. It will provide $62.5 billion over 5 years--$12.5 billion a year--nearly three times the amount proposed in the President's most ambitious, and still unprosecuted, proposal. In 1997 the President proposed extending care to 600,000 children from poor families, leaving fully 80% of eligible children without aid. That was the last we heard of it. And it wasn't good enough, anyway. If we are serious about putting parents to work and protecting children, we need to invest more in families and in child care help for them. Enabling families to work and helping children thrive means giving states enough money so that they can set reasonable eligibility levels, let families know that help is available, and take working families off the waiting lists. The Child Care Development Act will require $62.5 billion over five years. There will be several offsets necessary if we are serious about giving children in this country the type of care they need and deserve. Shifting spending from these offsets demonstrates that our true national priority is children, not wasteful military spending and corporate tax loopholes. The offsets that will be necessary are as follows. If we repeal the reductions in the Corporate Minimum Tax from the 1997 Budget Bill, we create $8.2 billion. The elimination of the Special Oil and Gas Depletion Allowance will make room for and additional $4.3 billion. An offset of $.575 billion will come from a repeal of the Enhanced Oil Recovery Credit and an offset of $13.767 billion will come from the elimination of exclusion for Foreign-Earned Income. From these four different offsets in tax provisions a sub total amount of $26.835 is created to spend on child care. Defense Cuts will also be necessary in the amount of $24.4 billion. This will come from canceling the F-22, a plane plagued with troubles, which will free up $19.29 billion, and $5.11 billion will come from a reduction in Nuclear Delivery Systems Within Overall Limits of START II. The remaining offsets can be made by reducing the Intelligence Budget by 5 percent, which would save $6.675 billion; by reducing Military Export Subsidies by $.85 billion; and by canceling the International Space Station, which costs $10.045 billion. All of which, when added together, allows for an additional $68.805 billion to be used to support our children. This is, finally, a child care bill on the same scope as the problem itself. We as a nation are neglecting the most vulnerable and important portion of our society--our children. Here is an ambitious solution to this vast problem that has been plaguing our country. So that we don't have to be a country that just talks about putting our children first. Mr. President, I want to speak a little bit from the heart. We are now at a point in our session where we have maybe 2\1/2\, 3 weeks to go. I think it is a tragedy that, in many ways, we are not involved in the work of democracy. From my point of view as a Senator from Minnesota, the work of democracy is to try to respond and speak to the concerns and circumstances of people's lives. As I travel around Minnesota and travel around the country, I believe that, more than anything else, what families are saying to us is, ``We want to do our very best by our kids, because if we as parents,'' or a single parent, ``can do our best by our kids, we will do our best by our country.'' One of the reasons we--I am talking about the people now in the country--are so disillusioned about our political process, above and beyond all that they hear about every day, which I hate, is that all that is happening is no good for our country. I think the polls show this as well, people are saying, ``Get on with your governing, too; please govern; please be relevant and important to our lives.'' People feel like we are not doing that. I have to say that if we can respond to what most people are talking about, which is how we earn a decent living and how do we give our children the care we know they need and deserve, we will be doing well by people. If we can do everything that we can do as Senators, Democrats and Republicans, and if the private sector plays its role and we also engage in voluntarism and a lot of good things happen at the community level and non-Government organizations, and nonprofits play their role, and I say to Rabbi Shemtov, our guest chaplain today, the religious community needs to play their role: if we all do everything we can to enable parents or a parent to do their best by their kids, then that is the best single thing we can do. What saddens me and also angers me is that all of a sudden, the focus on children is just off the table. We have lost it. It wasn't that many months ago that we were having conferences and we were talking about reports that were coming out and we couldn't stop discussing the development of the brain; how important it is to make sure that we get it right for our children because by age 3, if we don't get it right for them, they are never going to be ready for school and never be ready for life. What happened? What happened to our focus? We have lost our focus. We have lost our way. We are talking a lot about values, and we are talking a lot about moral issues and we should--we should. But isn't it also a moral question or a moral issue that one out of every four children under the age of 3 is growing up poor in America today, and one out of every three children of color under the age of 3 is growing up poor in America today? With our economy still humming along, how can it be that we cannot do better? I don't understand that. I say to the Rabbi and Chaplain, in the words of Rabbi Hillel, ``If not now, when?'' Here we are with 3 weeks to go to this Congress, and we haven't done anything to help families, to help children, to fill their void so that we make sure that every child who comes to kindergarten comes to kindergarten ready to learn. If we are going to talk about education, and we are going to have a discussion about education--maybe we won't on the present course--I think we have to focus on the learning gap. The truth of the matter is, we do quite well for kids in our public schools if they come to kindergarten ready to learn. It is the kids who come to kindergarten not ready to learn for whom we don't do well. I am not trying to take K-12 off the hook. We need to do much better. But couldn't we say that as a national goal we want to make sure that every child who comes to kindergarten comes to kindergarten ready to learn? So that she knows the alphabet. He knows colors and shapes and sizes. She knows how to spell her name. They have been read to widely and they come with the readiness to learn. The Presiding Officer, Senator DeWine, is as committed to children as any Senator in the Senate. He knows what I am saying. This is a cost-neutral bill. I will not go on about this bill's offsets. I cut into some tax loopholes and some subsidies that go to some of the largest corporations in America that do not need it. I raise some questions about whether we need some additional missiles and additional bombers. I redefine national security, and say, yes, we need a strong defense, but we need to take some of the money and invest for children. People can agree or disagree about where I get the money for this. Can't we agree that we take 1 percent of our budget and invest it in the health and skills and character and intellect of our children? They are 100 percent of our future. I must repeat this point. I cannot believe that not that many months ago we were all talking about development of the brain, early childhood development. We were all talking about legislation--we were all talking about how we were going to do something to help parents do better by their kids, and we are not doing that. That is why I introduce this legislation today. I do not think it is a cry in the wilderness, because I hope next year we are going to get this bill enacted. I am going to fight for this. And maybe, if I have a chance--I don't know that I will, given the next 3 weeks--I will bring some of it up as amendments. But we have to start speaking out about this, Mr. President. I say to Senator DeWine, the Presiding Officer, we have to start speaking out about this because we should be doing better.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I rise to express my outrage at threats toward Burmese opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi made Tuesday in the government-controlled press in Rangoon. Completely without justification the press called for Aung San Suu Kyi to be deported from Burma. The regime has again made the ridiculous charge that Aung San Suu Kyi is not entitled to Burmese citizenship. This charge is made on the xenophobic and insulting basis that she married a foreigner. The regime has long tried to discredit Aung San Suu Kyi with the Burmese people with this type of nonsense--it hasn't worked. The Burmese people voted for Aung San Suu Kyi's party overwhelmingly in 1990--electing opposition candidates to 80 percent of the parliament seats. She remains the hope of a repressed people longing for democracy and human rights. The military regime, which used to call itself the SLORC, has tried to improve its image by changing its name to the State Peace and development Council. But it is the same regime. It has had to prevent Aung San Suu Kyi from speaking publicly because she was drawing huge crowds to the front of her home. It has had to prevent her from traveling freely to visit her supporters since they fear her popularity. Far from being a foreigner, Aung San Suu Kyi embodies the very history of Burma. She is the daughter of the founder of the Burmese army and the leader of Burma's independence movement, General Aung San. Like her father, Aung San Suu Kyi has devoted years of her life to the Burmese people at great personal sacrifice. The Burmese people strongly identify Aung San Suu Kyi with her father's legacy and his struggle to bring independence and ethnic unity to Burma. In fact, displaying pictures of General Aung San has become a symbolic act of defiance and show of support for the opposition. University students began demonstrations in 1996 and again in 1998 by displaying portraits of Aung San as a rallying signal. The authorities can't take action against those displaying his picture since he is also revered by the regime as the nation's founder. The regime rightly fears the power of these symbols but their attempts to separate Aung San Suu Kyi from her legacy and deprive her of citizenship will fail. The Burmese people see through it. The people clearly do not want her deported. I urge the regime to treat this courageous woman with the respect she deserves and to ensure that no harm comes to her. She has stood up to the repressive tactics of the military regime for over 10 years now. In recent months, she has sacrificed her personal comfort and risked her health facing down the authorities. When denied the ability to travel freely she spent 10 days waiting in her car for the authorities to allow her to move. Her exceptional fortitude and her commitment to challenging the regime through non-violent actions are an inspiration to those working for human rights around the world. I also express my concern about recent detentions of several hundred of Aung San Suu Kyi's supporters. Last week, the regime reacted with typically heavy-handed tactics to prevent her party from convening the members of parliament elected in free and fair elections held in 1990. The regime has never allowed the parliament elected in 1990 to take office because the voters overwhelmingly elected opposition members. Aung San Suu Kyi recently called on the regime to convene the parliament. When that request was ignored her party decided to convene a ``People's Parliament'' on its own. The reaction of the military junta was predictable. They simply rounded up any opposition politician who might attend the planned events and ``detained'' them. Hundreds of party members are still being held. This outrageous tactic violates the rights of the Burmese people to exercise freedom of assembly and political expression. Although this behavior is nothing new or unexpected for this repressive regime we must persist in condemning it. I call on the regime to immediately release all opposition party members detained and to enter into genuine dialogue with the opposition and ethnic minority group about restoring democracy to Burma. And, again, I call on the military regime to treat Aung San Suu Kyi with respect as the legitimate leader of the opposition and to withdraw the threat of deportation and respect her rights as a Burmese citizen. To reiterate, Mr. President, I want to go on record. I express my outrage, and I think it is outrage of Democrats and Republicans, at the threats toward the Burmese opposition leader, Aung San Suu Kyi, made last Tuesday by a Government-controlled press. They are now talking about the possibility of deporting her from Burma. She is a very, very courageous woman. The people overwhelmingly elected her in 1990. What has happened since is that this military regime, which used to call itself SLORC, which has now tried to improve its image by calling itself the State Peace and Development Council, has been just full of brutal repression for the people there. I rise to express my concern about what is happening to this very courageous woman who has been trying to travel, has been trying to have an opportunity to speak out in her country and meet with other people. She spent recently 10 days just in her car trying to cross a bridge to meet with people, to speak with people in her own country. This regime really has her under house arrest. In addition, this past week, what happened is that many of the people in her party decided that they would convene a people's parliament, since their elections were nullified when this repressive military government took over. They held a meeting, and hundreds of them have been rounded up and are now in prison. I come to the floor of the Senate today to simply say that this is an outrageous practice of repression by this Government. I condemn it on the floor of the U.S. Senate. It is not always that I think I speak for almost every single Senator, but I believe Democrats and Republicans agree on this. I call on this military regime to treat this courageous woman with respect as a legitimate leader of the opposition and to release people whom they have unlawfully put in jail. Aung San Suu Kyi is a courageous woman. She stands for the very best of what our country stands for, which is respect for human rights and democracy. We need to speak out on the floor of the Senate, and we need to send a message to this repressive Government in Burma, that not only will we not do business with you as usual--and we are not doing that-- but we, as a Government, we as the U.S. Senate, will continue to speak out and condemn your actions, and we will continue to support people in Burma, those people who stand up for democracy and stand up for human rights. I yield the floor.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. I think this is a statement with which every single Senator will agree.

Mr. WELLSTONE. No. I thought my colleague wanted to hear me repeat the statement.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I am not taking near the 15 minutes.

Mr. WELLSTONE. With the indulgence of my colleagues, I ask for a couple of minutes. I have been trying to give a speech for 3 days on what is happening in Burma. It will take me about 4 minutes. I ask unanimous consent that I have 4 minutes as in morning business.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, the Boxer amendment would simply let the Interior Department do its job, which is making sure that oil companies pay full royalties for the oil they are drilling on Federal or Indian lands. That is what this amendment does. Right now, some of these companies are not paying the money that they owe, and several are being sued for it. Amazingly, there is a rider in this bill, the same rider put in during the conference committee on this spring s supplemental appropriations bill, that stops Interior from doing its job. That is what this is about. This rider stops Interior from issuing rules to collect these royalties. No wonder Senator Boxer has sounded the alarm. As a Senator from Minnesota, I am glad that we have Senators who are willing to stand up to oil companies. There are not that many Senators who will do so. The Senator from California has the courage to do so. This kind of sweetheart deal--and that is exactly what it is--is simply outrageous. It is corporate welfare of the worst kind. And even worse, in many cases this money is being taken away from our children's schools. In 24 States, the State's share of the royalties is used to fund public education, so when the oil companies underpay their royalties, education is the loser. In addition, the Federal share of these royalties goes to the Land and Water Conservation Fund and the National Historic Preservation Fund. If the Boxer amendment is adopted, the money will go where it should be going--to public education, the environment, historic preservation, and to Native American communities--instead of corporate bank accounts. Mr. President, this is an unbelievable story. The Interior Department's Mineral Management Service--MMS--simply wants to collect the money these companies owe the public. Interior Secretary Babbitt says: Many of the industry's largest companies are underpaying royalties. Just recently, Mobil Oil agreed to a $56.5 million settlement of Federal and State lawsuits alleging underpayment of royalties. That is what has been going on. And there has been a flurry of such settlements: $2.5 billion in Alaska, $350 million in California, $17.5 million in Texas, $10 million in Louisiana, and $8 million in New Mexico. MMS has now billed 12 of these companies $260 million for overdue royalties. Now the Justice Department has joined a lawsuit under the False Claims Act alleging fraud. According to Justice, several of these oil companies have been deliberately underpaying their royalties. Remember, this oil belongs to the public and to Native American tribes. We are leasing the mineral rights to them, but only under one condition. We are saying, ``Go ahead, take the oil; all we ask is a 12.5 percent cut on the fair market value.'' I don't think that is too much to ask. Nor do the people of this country think it is too much to ask. But apparently the oil companies do. Let me be clear about one thing. This has already come up in the debate. Senator Durbin spoke to it, and Senator Boxer spoke to it as well. We are not talking about all the oil companies. We are not talking about mom-and-pop independents. We are talking about the large integrated companies who sell to affiliates at undervalued prices. They make up only 5 percent of all the oil companies drilling on Federal land, but they account for 68 percent of all Federal production. For over 2 years, the Interior Department has been developing regulations to put a stop to this highway robbery. This is not new authority. Interior already has statutory authority to collect royalties on the ``fair market value'' of this oil, but the new regulations would keep oil companies from manipulating ``fair market value'' to underpay their royalties. The oil companies don't like that. Here is the question I ask colleagues: Do these companies, do these huge integrated oil companies, really deserve our sympathy? I don't think so. They have been caught--let me repeat that--they have been caught underpaying their royalties. Since when do we have such tremendous sympathy in the U.S. Senate for people who are cheating the public? It is interesting to me. We pass crime bills all the time. Now we have the Juvenile Justice Act--a crackdown on children. Very little sympathy there. Put children in adult corrections facilities; very little sympathy for these children. We passed a welfare bill. We don't really know what is happening. We know women have been taken off the welfare rolls. We know the children have been taken off the rolls. But we don't know what kind of jobs they have, what kind of wages. We don't know whether there is good child care for those children. Very little sympathy for these families either. We tried to bring an amendment to the floor to increase the minimum wage so that working people can make a decent living. There is very little sympathy on the floor of the Senate for any of these folks. But in through the door walks a CEO from one of these oil companies-- large integrated oil companies that have been underpaying their royalties, oil companies who happen to be heavy campaign contributors-- and all of a sudden we have sympathy to spare. We have sympathy coming out the wazoo. We feel their pain. All of a sudden it is, ``At your service, sir. What can we do for you, sir? How can we serve you better?'' These companies have been caught red-handed. The cops are after them. Law enforcement is closing in. They are in deep trouble, and they are desperate for someone to come to their rescue, and fast. So who do they call? They call their friends. They call the U.S. Congress. And guess what. Congress answers the call without a moment's hesitation. With a rider in this bill, Congress comes to the rescue and rewards them with a ``get out of jail free'' card. The Boxer amendment would revoke this sweetheart deal that lets oil companies keep ripping off the public, lets them keep shortchanging education, even after they have been caught cheating. If there ever was a time to be tough on crime, this is it. In fact, I say this is a time for zero tolerance. The rider in this bill sends law enforcement on paid holiday. The Boxer amendment puts the cops back on the beat. I say to my colleagues, we have to ask ourselves a question: What is our purpose here? Are we elected to fight for people or for the oil companies? Were we elected to fight for good government or for corporate welfare? Are we going to do what the public wants us to do, or are we going to do what the oil companies want us to do? I urge my colleagues to join in a broad coalition that opposes this $66 million corporate welfare giveaway. That is what this amendment speaks to. That is what this debate is all about, and all of us will be held accountable. Mr. President, how much time do I have left?

Mr. WELLSTONE. Yes.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, Senator Boxer stepped out. She yielded me 15 minutes.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank my colleague.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I yield the remainder of my time.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. May I ask my colleague one more question?

Mr. WELLSTONE. And I will let my colleague go on with his presentation. I know there are a number of Senators who want to speak, myself included. I ask the Senator from Iowa this question, again, making the appeal to the majority leader: Doesn't this also go to the heart of accountability? Isn't it true people in Iowa, Minnesota, the Dakotas, throughout the Midwest, and, for that matter, throughout the country as well--let me focus on our States--as my colleague from Iowa thinks about it, don't people back in our States have the right to know where we stand? Don't they have a right to know whether or not their Senators have been out here on the floor making proposals--positive proposals-- about what could be done that speaks to their economic pain one way or the other? Doesn't this whole issue before us speak to the issue of accountability? If we have a tabling motion at 5 or 5:30, albeit the minority leader absolutely has to speak, doesn't this take away from the very idea of accountability, where people will wonder, where were our Senators, why didn't they speak up for us, or why didn't they have other alternatives if they didn't like this amendment? Don't we really undercut the very notion of accountability and what we are about by rushing to a tabling motion on such an urgent matter, such a central issue, something that is so important to people in our States? I feel some indignation about this. This is not the way to proceed. For me, this is the issue. What is happening in Minnesota in agriculture is the issue. I just don't see a couple of hours, table, goodbye, that's it, one way or the other.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Absolutely. I thank the Chair. I guess it is an indirect question for other colleagues as well. I put it in the form of a question to my colleague from Iowa. While I understand the need for some sort of time agreement, does not the Senator from Iowa agree with me that we have an economic convulsion in agriculture right now and this is an issue of central importance to many Senators from the Midwest? I ask my colleague from Iowa if he thinks, in all due respect to the majority leader, that we are marginalizing or trivializing this issue by saying that it is going to be tabled at 5 o'clock? Some Senators may not even be back here--not just Senator Daschle from South Dakota--without the opportunity to speak about this issue. Does my colleague think maybe it is a mistake not to allow other Senators to speak on this? This is not a small issue--am I correct?--in our States. Doesn't this issue deserve the full attention of the Senate or full opportunity for a full debate? And does my colleague not have some concern that by having a tabling motion sometime around 5, that a good many Senators are not going to be able to speak on this question, this urgent question?

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, may I ask my colleague one question?

Mr. WELLSTONE. I would be pleased to yield.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, my colleague from North Dakota is right. This gathering is not a gathering just for farmers, but it is also for small businesses, for educators, for the religious community. It is really for rural America, farmers and other citizens from the Dakotas, from Iowa, from Minnesota. It is going to be 9:30 to noon at the Nobles County Fairground grandstand. And I also say to my colleague from North Dakota, it is very important to point out to the presiding Chair and others that Republicans are invited to be a part of this gathering. This is going to be a bipartisan effort to focus the attention of the Nation on what is happening in agriculture. So it is a very, very important gathering. I think there will be a huge turnout of people, and I hope that those of us who represent the Midwest, Democrats and Republicans alike, will be there. Mr. President, I want to read the beginning of the letter that Wally Sparby sent to me. Again, he is the director of the Minnesota State office of the USDA Farm Service Agency. Senator Wellstone: During our 1998 loan season, we approved loans based on $4 per bushel for wheat and $2.55 to $2.75 for corn. Now that farmers are receiving from $2.50 to $2.70 for their wheat in the marketplace and $1.42 to $1.52 per bushel for their corn, it just does not sustain cash flow. And among the recommendations, the first recommendation is: The one thing Congress can do that will help farmers with cash flow today more than anything else is to take the caps off loan rates. That is followed by two exclamation points. I would, again, like to have this letter printed in the Record. I think the Chair already indicated its approval. Mr. President, for the State of Minnesota, according to the Federal figures, net farm income fell 38 percent from 1996 to 1997. With these prices, the current farm income might fall far more than that if we do not act. I am going to get to the figures and the statistics in a moment, but I would again like to go back to what I said to my colleague, Senator Harkin from Iowa, at the beginning. We just now had a unanimous consent agreement that there will be no second-degree amendment, but from my point of view, as a Senator from Minnesota, I would just want to say to the majority leader, Senator Lott, I do not think this procedure is satisfactory. I think we should be accountable. I do not think this should be a tabling motion. I think this should be an up-or-down vote. We have a package of proposals here, which I will go over in a moment, which represent our best effort to, in a very positive way, respond to an economic convulsion that is taking place in agriculture, to respond to the economic pain of people we represent, to respond to the fact that we now have broken dreams and broken lives and broken families, and the status quo is unacceptable. There is not a one of us, Democrat or Republican, from the Midwest or from the agricultural States, who cannot and should not be out on the floor of the Senate fighting as hard as we can for our people. This is the issue, and I don't think the majority leader's proposal that we have an up or down tabling motion is satisfactory. For my own part, I do not intend for this to be the end of the debate this week. We are going to come back to this question over and over again. We must. I think the intent that there only be 3 hours to debate this amendment marginalizes or trivializes what is a central issue in the United States of America today. I think a tabling motion as opposed to an up-or-down vote does the same thing, and we are going to have to be held accountable. One way or another, if we should not prevail today, my working assumption--I am only speaking for myself as a Senator from Minnesota--is that we will come back to this over and over again in however many weeks we have remaining. I consider it to be my mandate as a Senator from Minnesota to make this my central priority. I do not know any other way to do it. We have so many discussions on the floor of the Senate. People are just coming --they are not even back yet. A lot of Senators will not even have an opportunity to debate this before we have a tabling motion. Let me just say that in personal terms what this means, this depression in agriculture, these record low prices, is that family farmers, that is to say, people who work on the land, live on the land--they are not absentee investors--are not going to make it. It is just that simple. They cannot make it. So in personal terms this is devastating not just for family farmers but for our small towns, our rural communities, whether it be in Minnesota, Iowa, North Dakota or South Dakota. You name it. It is devastating, absolutely devastating. We are always going to have somebody farming. There will be acres of land. Someone will own the land. Someone will own the animals for the livestock producers, but the health and vitality of our communities in rural America is not based upon the number of acres that are farmed or the number of farm animals. It is based upon the number of family farmers who live in those communities and contribute to our schools and buy from our local businesses and contribute to our churches or synagogues. That is what this is all about. We are confronted with the fierce urgency of now. If we are not careful, time is going to march on, and it is going to leave all of us standing alone, standing naked. What that will really mean is that family farmers are just going to be driven off the land where they not only work but where they live. Again, before I get to the statistics, because I want my colleagues, as I make this plea to Republicans as well, and Democrats and everybody here to understand my own position, which is going to be today if we win, great; if we do not, come back over and over and over again--from my own part I remember moving out to Minnesota to Northfield, where I was a teacher, college teacher, and I don't have an agricultural background, but my father was a Jewish immigrant who fled persecution in Russia where he was a writer. My mother was a cafeteria worker. But, Theresa and Phil--Phil Van Zuillan is no longer alive, he passed away-- from Nerstrand in rural Rice County, they were the people who were my teachers when I began to do a lot of community organizing. And that is when I first began to learn about community agriculture. And my friend, Don Langer, who is no longer alive. I learned an awful lot from farmers in Rice County, crop farmers, dairy farmers, about a county 490-some square miles, population 41,000. And then I began to organize with farmers. And then there was the mid-1980s, and all my organizing then was with farmers. And we saw just essentially a meltdown in agriculture. We saw people driven off the land and record foreclosures--record low prices and record farm foreclosures, in that formula that goes together. I remember going to some of those foreclosures--it was awful--some of those auctions. It was awful. I remember seeing people just breaking down and crying. There were some farm families--let me not be melodramatic, but let me just say it because it is true: I remember some of the men I met, some of the farmers I met, who took their lives. They took their lives. Mary Ryan works in our office in Willmar in West Central Minnesota, Mary and Bob Ryan--one of their friends, I say to my colleague, Senator Conrad from North Dakota, took his life. He had been foreclosed on. That is what is going on now. We have to somehow sort of bring this to the attention of the Nation today, but today is not the end of it. If this set of proposals are tabled, this is just the beginning. This will not be the end. For me, I will tell you that as a Senator from Minnesota, it will just be the beginning. We saw this dislocation, we saw people foreclosed on. We had huge, massive rallies. We had anywhere between 10,000 and 15,000 people who marched on the State capital in Minnesota. I do not want to go through it again, but that is exactly what is happening. My appeal to farmers in our States, and not just the farmers, but to rural America and around the country, is we are going to need you. I hope we succeed today, but if we do not succeed today I hope you will hold people accountable. We are going to need you because we are going to be back over and over again. The principal problem is low commodity prices. If I had a blackboard here and I was teaching, I would just write: Price, price, price. The price of corn in Minnesota is $1.50 a bushel, or even less at many elevators. You could be the best farmer in the world, the best manager in the world, and there is no way you can cash-flow at $1.50 a bushel. We ought to have a price of $2.70 or even $3 a bushel. Anything below $2 a bushel is a death knell for family farmers. Virtually no farmer can cash-flow at that level. Wheat these days in Minnesota is about $2.65 per bushel. It should be $3.75 or $4. Soybeans are approximately $5 or $5.10. We would like to see that price at $6. The current prices are almost unbelievably low. According to a letter sent by Secretary of Agriculture Dan Glickman to Minority Leader Daschle, corn prices nationwide are 30 percent below the average price of the last 5 years; wheat prices are 28 percent under the average price; and soybean prices are 17 percent below 5-year averages. Livestock prices are way down as well. This is exactly what happened in the mid-1980s, and we had this massive shakeout of family farmers at that time which changed the face of rural America--and not for the better. Many communities in Minnesota and all across the heartland were devastated by what happened. And that is going to happen again. It is happening now, and we are going to see many of our rural communities destroyed on the present course. We must change that course. This amendment that we have introduced is a positive proposal to change that course. Some in Minnesota are talking about losses to our State's economy this year of over $1 billion. Some are speaking about 20 percent plus of family farmers who are threatened. Again, this is not just for the family farmers. It is for small business people, it is for ag lenders, it is for our educational institutions, it is for our children, it is for our grandchildren, it is for our small towns, it is for our rural communities. Do you know what else? In Minnesota, it is also for the Twin Cities. We are all in the same boat. The fate of greater Minnesota and the health and vitality of greater Minnesota, or lack thereof, and health and vitality of our metropolitan area are intertwined. We are looking at an economic convulsion in rural America. Certainly that is the case in the Midwest. We are looking at broken dreams and broken lives and broken families. We have to do something. I was at a farm crisis meeting, first in Crookston, MN, back in March, in northwestern Minnesota. My colleague, Senator Conrad, will speak about this as well. It certainly applies to North Dakota in full force. The issue was not just low prices, but several years of bad weather and crop disease. Then I was on a farm in Granite Falls, MN, East Grand Forks and Fulda. Next weekend, we have this rally scheduled, September 19, Saturday morning. Again, 9:30 to noon, rain or shine, Nobles County Fairgrounds grandstand, Worthington, MN, junction I-90 and highway 59. Senator Harkin will be there. Senator Dorgan will be there. As many Republicans as possible, and Democrats, I hope will be there as well. It is not a partisan crisis. I can tell you right now, many of these farmers who are going under are not Democrats. Many are Republicans and many are Democrats. And I don't think it makes a darned bit of difference to any of them, in terms of political party. Mr. President, we have taken some steps this year to address the problem. But we are falling way short. We included, if Senator Conrad remembers this, we included some additional plant loan money into the supplemental appropriations bill earlier this year. That was for spring planting loans. We were pleased to do that. It helped some. Senator Conrad and Dorgan and Daschle and others--and I was pleased to be a part of that effort--put together an indemnity bill that was $500 million in disaster assistance. It is going to go way up. We are now talking about $1.5 billion of indemnity payments when we are looking at what is happening in the South as well. That is part of this amendment. That is critically important. We need to get some assistance to people, ASAP. This is a crisis, all in capital letters. What our current amendment does is simple. I am just going to focus on two or three provisions. First thing our amendment does is it lifts the cap on the farm marketing loan rates, and it raises that loan rate. Again, the primary problem is price. What farmers say to me is: Paul, even if you get the payments out, indemnity payment, disaster assistance payments for us, what is the future for us? Comodity prices have fallen through the floor. Whatever our explanation is for the low commodity prices, there has to be some kind of safety net to help people stay in business. The single most important thing we can do is to improve prices, and the tool we have available to us is the loan rate. The loan rate does not set the prices, it does not even set a floor under the prices. If it did, the prices would not be as low as they are currently. But the loan rate does tend to give farmers--there is not one Senator who can argue to the contrary--a bit of leverage in the marketplace. It let's them take a loan on that crop, on their crop, and hang on to the crop and wait for prices to improve--if that is their choice. Or, and this is a critical point--I am sorry that we are at this critical point, but we are--or, when the prices fall below the loan rate, farmers can also use that loan rate as a safety net and take a check worth the difference between the loan rate and the market price on the amount of their production. It is simple. It is simple. Unfortunately, the 1996 farm bill, which I always call the ``freedom to fail'' bill--when it passed, I called it that--capped those loan rates at unrealistically low levels. There were some good things in the Freedom to Farm or ``freedom to fail'' bill, I say to my colleagues who are now coming to the floor, but at least we have to have this modification. For corn, the Freedom to Farm bill capped loan rates at $1.89 a bushel. Again, virtually no farmer can make it on $1.89 a bushel. It doesn't even work as a partial safety net. What our amendment will do is lift the current cap on loan rates and raise the marketing loan rate on corn from its current $1.89 per bushel to $2.20 or $2.25. It will raise the loan rate for wheat from the current $2.58 to about $3.22. Raising the loan rate usually tends to set a floor under prices by giving farmers some leverage in the marketplace. At a minimum, it certainly will greatly improve the safety net for our farmers. Our proposal will also extend the repayment period on these same marketing loans to give farmers an extra 6 months to hold on to the grain and wait for a better price. The purpose of both of these provisions is to give farmers some leverage. The Freedom to Farm bill--what I call the ``freedom to fail'' bill--gave farmers planting flexibility. That is great. Let me repeat it, that is great. We were for that. But we now need to give farmers some marketing freedom to go along with the planting freedom. We need to raise the loan rate and extend the repayment on these loans along with dramatically increasing the indemnity money. I am going to say it one more time. I have other colleagues on the floor who want to speak. Mr. President, we have come to the floor of the Senate with a set of proposals that are substantive, that are credible. The vast majority of family farmers around the country, I am positive, support the proposal to take the cap off the loan rate and get the price up to give them some leverage in the marketplace and the indemnity payments. I hope that there will be strong bipartisan support for this amendment. I hope so. If not, if this amendment should be tabled, then as far as I am concerned, the debate just begins. I say to Senator Conrad, who is about to speak--I am about to yield the floor--but I think he will agree with the last point I make which is, for us, am I right, I say to Senator Conrad, this is the issue, this has to be our work, we want it to be our work? We don't want the pain to be there, but we can't go home without fighting in every possible way, using every rule available, using all of our leverage to make sure that this Senate and this Congress comes forward with positive legislation that can make a difference so that so many good, wonderful people in our States don't go under, are not ruined, are not devastated. That is what this debate is all about. I yield the floor. Mr. CONRAD addressed the Chair.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I just say that I thank my colleague. My understanding is that there might be a little time. My plane was delayed. I will wait. I thank my colleagues.

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