Paul Wellstone

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Could I ask unanimous consent to have 10 minutes in the sequence after Senator Dorgan?

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Might I interrupt my colleague for a second. I know we will hear from the Senator from Oregon to speak about the tragedy in Oregon, and I think his remarks are perhaps the most important remarks of the day. Might I ask, since we have some order, after the Senator from Oregon speaks, then two Republicans will speak?

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I rise to speak one more time--and I have done this from time to time on the floor of the Senate--on behalf of the nomination of James C. Hormel to be U.S. Ambassador to Luxembourg. I have talked about Mr. Hormel's qualifications before, so I need not repeat that. We are talking about someone who is a loving and devoted father and grandfather, an accomplished businessman, dean of students at the University of Chicago Law School, on the board of directors of all sorts of organizations, from the San Francisco Chamber of Commerce to Swarthmore College--you name it. One of my colleagues--and I think it is extremely unfortunate--has compared Mr. Hormel, a highly qualified public servant and nominee, to Mr. David Duke who, among other credentials, is a former grand wizard of the Ku Klux Klan, founded the National Association for the Advancement of White People, and claimed that the ``Holocaust is primarily a historical hoax and not against Jews but perpetuated on Christians by Jews.'' Mr. James Hormel has been compared with this man, David Duke. I want to say to my colleagues that, given this kind of statement made publicly by a U.S. Senator, this kind of character assassination, it is more important now than ever that this man, Mr. Hormel, be allowed to have his day in the court of the U.S. Senate. There is overwhelming support for his nomination. He should be brought to the floor of the Senate, and we should have an up-or-down vote. I want to just announce my intention to colleagues that when we come back, I will have sense-of-the-Senate amendments that the majority leader should bring this nomination to the floor of the U.S. Senate. When colleagues start making comparisons to David Duke to someone who has been such a sensitive, good public servant, that man or that woman--in this particular case, Mr. James Hormel--deserves, out of a sense of decency and fairness, to have his case brought before the U.S. Senate. I am going to be pushing very, very hard on this when we get back. I thank my colleague from Nebraska for his courtesy. I yield the floor.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, let me join with my colleagues from Vermont and New Hampshire in supporting their amendment. I shall be very, very brief-- uncharacteristically brief. I see the Presiding Officer smiling. Minnesota is a State that has played a very central role in this debate about tobacco. I think if there is one thing that has come out of the litigation, the whole case against tobacco with Minnesota leading the way, Attorney General Humphrey and others, it is this: Minnesota unearthed a lot of documents, around 36,000 documents, and many of the documents have been referred to in the debates on the floor of the Senate. The one thing that you see over and over again is a pattern of lying. It is just a pattern of outright lying on the part of this industry. Mr. President, I don't believe that an industry that has walked away from an agreement, which has really willfully targeted our children, has really caused a tremendous amount of pain among children and their families, has really brought about the addiction of children and too many citizens dying an early death, deserves any immunity at all. We should not give this industry any special deal. We don't in other cases. I don't think this industry should get immunity. I fully support this amendment. It is as simple as that. I see nothing in what this industry has done over many, many years--the way in which this industry has conducted itself, the way in which this industry has blatantly lied to people in this country, or, for that matter, the way this industry has related to what is going on here in the Senate--that would lead me to the conclusion that they deserve a special deal. I don't think people in the country think they deserve any special deal. Therefore, this amendment is extremely important. I hope colleagues will support it.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I will speak for a couple of minutes on this amendment. I ask unanimous consent after I speak on this amendment that I have 2 minutes to speak as in morning business, and following that, that Senator Kerrey be allowed to have the floor.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I rise today as a proud co- sponsor of this Violence Against Women Act. I was a co-sponsor of the original Violence Against Women Act of 1994 and will work hard to see this Violence Against Women Act pass as well. As you well know my wife Sheila and I do a lot of work trying to reduce violence in homes. That is a big priority for us. And the passage of the 1994 Violence Against Women Act was a first big step and an historical occasion. It was the culmination of over twenty-five years of hard work by local and national organizations. It was an acknowledgment that this kind of violence within families is everybody's business. It was the public recognition that for all too many women the home, rather than being a safe place is a very dangerous place. And finally it sent a clear message that violence against women was a crime that would not be tolerated. It sent a clear message that we as a nation were committed to ending violence against women. At that time we thought we were introducing a comprehensive bill to end violence against women. We have learned a great deal since the passage of the first Act and with that knowledge we know we can and must do better. We have also learned that violence against women is multi-faceted problem that must be addressed in many ways. While the first Act provided important funding to improve services to abused women and improve the criminal justice system, the statistics show we must do more. In my own state of Minnesota, at least 17 women were killed in 1997 by their intimate partners. In that same year, over 4,000 women and over 5,000 children used domestic violence shelters in my state. I am sure that the provisions provided in VAWA allowed so many women to be served. I am sure that the provision in WAVA allowed law enforcement, in my state and across the country, to better address cases of domestic abuse. But now we must broaden our approach to this critical problem. And so today we introduce the Violence Against Women Act II. This legislation not only reauthorizes and improves the initial commitment set forth in VAWA, but also addresses the impact of violence against women in areas of child visitation, sexual assault prevention, insurance discrimination, as well as violence in the workplace and on campuses. The initiatives in this bill, as I'm sure my colleague Joe Biden will attest, were developed as part of a collaborative effort with researchers, advocates and service providers alike. Seeing the problems that victims face on a daily basis, they have helped us to develop legislation that will assist women who have been victims of violence. I have worked hard at addressing the severe economic consequences of domestic abuse on working women and am proud to say that VAWA II includes provisions to ensure access to family and medical leave coverage. With the passage of this Act women will be allowed to be absent from work so that they can deal with the domestic violence in their lives. Under this legislation victims of abuse could use family and medical leave to attend court hearings and go to appointments with health care providers. In addition this legislation specifies that unemployment compensation should be provided if employment is terminated due to domestic abuse. If a woman loses her job because of the abuse she is experiencing in her home then she will be assured access to unemployment compensation. In other words, this legislation addresses the fact that the cycle of violence will not be interrupted unless victims of abuse are assured of economic security and independence. Another facet of domestic violence that has been recognized since the passage of the 1994 Violence Against Women Act is the discrimination that victims of abuse face. I have worked hard at ending discrimination by insurance companies against victims of abuse and am proud to be able to say that this issue is well addressed in VAWA II. After years of work by advocates, encouraging women to come forward and report their abuse, we now find that they are being discriminated against based on their status as victims of that abuse. We all know that denying women access to insurance they need to foster their mobility out of an abusive situation must be stopped. Under this legislation insurance companies could no longer discriminate against victims of abuse in any line of insurance. And finally, I would just like to mention the provision to provide safe havens for children. It is time we address the danger that children and victims of abuse are subjected to during visitation sessions with former partners. Let us stop further violence from occurring by providing safe centers for children who are members of families in which violence is a problem. These centers will provide a safe environment in which children can visit with their parents without risk of being exposed to violence in the context of their family relationships. These centers will also save the lives of mothers by providing secure and supervised environments where they can drop off their children to visit with their abusers. Stopping the cycle of violence means providing safe places for women and children inside and outside the home. While we worked hard in the first Violence Against Women Act to make streets and homes safer for women by investing in law enforcement initiatives, we have learned that a woman's safety is dependent on her ability to achieve economic as well as physical security. The measures that I have mentioned are only some of the pieces that show the comprehensive nature of this bill. It is a reflection of what we have learned and the acknowledgment that we can and must do better. The Violence Against Women Act II is an impressive piece of legislation that deserves serious attention in this Congress. I look forward to the hearings and debates on this bill and look forward to working on and seeing it pass.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, when the Congress first conceived of comprehensive tobacco legislation, the primary goal was to deter youth smoking--I will say that again--the primary goal was, and is, to deter youth smoking. We have now discovered, through millions of documents--the State of Minnesota has led the way; my State, Minnesota, has led the way--that the industry has over the years intentionally marketed to our children, intentionally targeted our children. Our children, our sons and daughters--their profits. Our children's lives for their money. This is an unacceptable trade-off. Mr. President, do not take my words as a Senator from Minnesota as the final words on this matter. Let us just look at the tobacco companies' own documents. An R.J. Reynolds document penned in 1976: Evidence is now available to indicate that 14-18 year old group is an increasing segment of the smoking population. RJR-(tobacco) must soon establish a successful new brand in this market if our position in the industry is to be maintained in the long term. Philip Morris in 1981: Today's teenager is tomorrow's potential regular customer, and the overwhelming majority of smokers first begin to smoke while still in their teens . . . The smoking patterns of teenagers are particularly important to Philip Morris. The 1998 report, ``Taking Action to Reduce Tobacco Use,'' published by the Institute of Medicine of the National Academy of Sciences, concluded--and I quote-- . . . the single most direct and reliable method for reducing consumption is to increase the price of tobacco products, thus encouraging the cessation and reducing the level of initiation of tobacco use. And, colleagues, we can look at tobacco to see what effect raising prices has. Between 1979 and 1991, real prices in Canada increased from $2.09 to $5.42. And when that happened, the smoking usage among 15- to 19-year- olds fell from 42 percent to 16 percent. This is dramatic evidence; it is not a conjecture on my part. It is an important analysis. Now, colleagues, the tobacco industry has blitzed the Senate on this amendment. We have a second-degree amendment that doesn't want to do with any raise in price. And what are they saying? They are saying that this will bankrupt us. What are they saying? This will create a black market. But, Mr. President, Jeffrey Harris, who is a leading and impartial expert, talks about the tobacco industry making about $5 billion in profits in the year 2003. It does not sound like they are going to go under. And we can look at other countries--the United Kingdom, Ireland, Denmark, and Finland--all of which have added on taxes to reduce usage, none of which has had a problem with this black market which we are supposed to be faced with. Mr. President, let me just simply say again what my colleague Senator Kennedy has said. The $1.10 tax that we now have, the $1.10 increase in the price--Senator McCain deserves a tremendous amount of credit for his leadership. But the fact of the matter is, if we had $1.10, we could decrease youth smoking by about 34 percent; that would be $1.10. If we went to $1.50, we could decrease youth smoking close to 56 percent. I say to my colleagues, even if the evidence is somewhat ambiguous, even if there are other studies suggesting that this might not happen, at least to this extent, what side do we want to err on? Do we want to err on the side of not jacking up the price and dramatically reducing the demand, especially among teenagers and young people, and getting to a 60 percent reduction? Or do we want to err on the side of not having the price high enough, combined with other smoking cessation programs that we need to put in effect, and continuing to see our children addicted, continuing to see our children take up smoking tobacco, and continuing to see our children die at an early age? Mr. President, let me conclude. Price increases will not bankrupt the industry. Price increases will not create a black market. What price increases will do is save lives. Let me repeat that one more time, because quite often what the tobacco industry has done over the years-- I think my State of Minnesota has proven this through the documents that we have unearthed--is what they do is what they know how to do best, which is they simply lie and distort the truth. So let me be clear about what this amendment is about. Colleagues, the price increase in the Kennedy amendment will not bankrupt the industry. The price increase that the Kennedy amendment calls for, $1.50, will not create a black market. What this price increase will do is save lives. It is for the lives of all Americans, it is for the lives of young people that should not die a premature death, that I ask my colleagues to support Senator Kennedy's amendment. Yesterday, my colleague from Massachusetts pointed out that an additional 40-percent increase will mean that 750,000 more children will not start smoking--750,000 children that won't start smoking. This is about saving lives. This is, I think, perhaps the most important public health amendment that we have, because if we want to dramatically decrease demand and stop smoking among teenagers, we have to get the price up there to lessen the demand. This amendment does that. I ask all of my colleagues to support this amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I ask the manager that I may have 6 minutes to speak. Amendment No. 2422

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Joe Goodwin, who is an intern, be allowed the privilege of the floor for the duration of this debate.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank my colleague. I won't need that much time. Privilege of the Floor

Mr. WELLSTONE. Will my colleague be kind enough to give me 10 seconds?

Mr. WELLSTONE. Not Senator Ford--dividing up how many lawyers worked on this and how much they got paid and all the rest of it. I never heard any of that before. Here is what I do know. It is true the State of Minnesota took on this industry. It is true the tobacco industry, just like some of my colleagues, don't want that to happen. It is true they challenged the contingency fee, just like my colleagues are trying to do here today on the floor of the Senate. But the tobacco industry lost in Minnesota in a case that went to the Supreme Court. Minnesota, working with lawyers and working with consumers, unearthed--what is it again; let me make sure I have the exact figure--34 million pages of documents. Mr. President, this amendment should be defeated. If it is adopted, it would be great for the tobacco industry, but it would not be great for the consumers and people we represent, and I think Minnesota is living proof of that. I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank Senator Hollings. Mr. President, here we go again. Now we find out that this bill covers not only prospective actions but it also has been expanded to cover, and thereby affect, four State settlements that have already been finalized in Mississippi, Florida, Texas, and Minnesota. We have been through this before in Minnesota. The tobacco industry challenged the State entering into a contingent fee with attorneys. They took this challenge to the trial court, to appellate court, and the Minnesota Supreme Court, and they lost every time. This amendment is another tobacco company amendment, and I believe they will lose again on the floor of the U.S. Senate. Mr. President, I have to respond to some of what I have heard my colleagues on the other side say about how these attorneys have done so little. That is a bitter irony, from the point of view of a Senator from the State of Minnesota. Minnesota, for instance, from August 1994, when the case commenced, until January 1998--we had numerous, unprecedented pretrial and discovery proceedings. Over 34 million pages of documents were reviewed. The majority of them had never been disclosed. The tobacco companies fought this over and over and over again on privilege claims. They lost. And the irony, I say to my colleague from South Carolina, is that much of what we know about all of the tobacco companies' tactics of misinformation and deceit come from those documents--from the State of Minnesota, from that case, from that settlement. It has a lot to do with the fact that people in the country want us to pass tough legislation. It has a lot to do with the fact that Minnesota led the way. What we are really talking about here is something very historic. These States went on a contingent fee basis with lawyers, took on the tobacco companies, and these settlements were historic because these were the first time that this tobacco industry had ever lost in court. Despite the long odds, Attorney General Humphrey and other attorneys general took on the industry, went with contingent fee, and the tobacco industry tried to stop it. They lost in Minnesota. And because of this work, with 34 million documents, additional information, a record of deceit and misinformation by this industry--that is what this debate is all about. This is not about anything other than making sure that when consumers want to take on a powerful industry like the tobacco industry, or the State of Minnesota wants to take on a powerful industry like the tobacco industry, they won't be able to do so. As a matter of fundamental fairness, this amendment should be defeated. I just have to simply say, I don't know where my colleague from Kentucky gets all of his arithmetic from--I am talking about Senator McConnell from Kentucky----

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, there is little question that our country faces a skills shortage in industries with a concentration of workers who utilize high technology and information technologies. In Minnesota, we have very low unemployment in general, and Minnesota technology industry employers are having a hard time finding workers with the skills they need. The Minnesota Department of Economic Security released a study last week called ``Beyond 2000: Information Technology Workers in Minnesota,'' which indicated that over 60 percent of information-technology employers in the state believe the shortage of qualified information technology workers is ``moderately'' or ``extremely'' serious. Representatives of the Minnesota High Tech Council have been in touch with my office. They believe that the provisions of the Abraham bill which raise the cap on the number of nonimmigrant workers allowed to come temporarily to work in the United States are necessary. I agree that we want to make sure that immigration policy is consistent with our overall desire to remain the world's leader in high technology industries. The high tech sector is crucial in Minnesota. It is an engine of growth and a pillar of current very good economic performance by the state. I take seriously the argument that if the cap, which has been reached for this year, is not lifted, then a significant amount of U.S. high-tech business and a significant amount of jobs could actually be moved oversees. At the same time, however, there are three areas of concern that I believe must be resolved in the bill before it merits support. First is the matter of job training for workers who are U.S. citizens. Much of the debate over the bill is focused on high tech workers. Clearly we would hope that when we are talking about good jobs--jobs that require significant information technology skills and which pay well--then we are making every effort to see to it that U.S. workers have a shot at those jobs. That means training. As ranking member of the Labor Subcommittee on Employment and Training, I'm extremely pleased that we were able to complete and pass with an overwhelming vote recently a bill to reform the country's workforce training and education system. Still, even once that reform is enacted, following a conference with the House and passage of a conference report, I believe that the fact we are talking about a serious shortage of workers with technology skills indicates that our current federal job training system, even combined with the large amount of employer-sponsored education and training that is happening, remains inadequate. The skills shortage points to a failure in our efforts to educate and train. I had intended to offer an amendment to improve the Abraham bill in this area. I am pleased, though, that we were able to agree to changes in the bill which first of all authorize new demonstration programs for technology skills training for American workers. That provision is in a managers' amendment, which it is my understanding will be accepted. The provision ensures that funding for that new training will not diminish funding for existing federal job training programs. It therefore is consistent with the workforce education and training reform we passed with such a large vote. It is crucial that a bill which aims to address a skills shortage in industries that have good jobs available take every step to make sure that our own citizens ultimately can become qualified for those jobs. In my view, the new training authorized in the bill should be paid for largely with proceeds from a modest fee collected from employers for each application for the specialized visas. The Senate cannot technically originate a revenue measure to fund the new training we authorize here. But it is my hope that the House will include such a funding mechanism for new training of U.S. workers and that such a provision will be included in the conference bill. It would be a serious mistake to enact a bill that allows a large increase in the visas but does not call on those employers who will most benefit from the bill to help pay for the new training. I appreciate my colleagues' willingness to work with me on the provision that is included in the managers' amendment, and I appreciate as well the colloquy between Senators Abraham, Kennedy and myself indicating support from each of us for funding job training in this bill. Mr. President, I also strongly support both amendments offered by my colleague Senator Kennedy--one of the recruitment of U.S. workers for available high technology jobs and one regarding non-displacement of U.S. workers currently holding jobs in the information technology industry. They are moderate amendments and should be included in the bill.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I am very pleased we could agree on language in the managers' amendment which authorizes new demonstration programs for technology skills training for American workers, provided that funding for such training does not diminish funding for existing federal job training programs. It is important that job-training provisions of this bill are consistent with extremely significant legislation we recently passed overwhelmingly to improve the federal workforce education and training system. I thank my colleagues for working with me to achieve that end. Still, while many employers in this country are doing a great deal to educate and train technology workers, the clamor for a large increase in non-U.S. citizens to fill high-skill jobs here seems clearly to point to a lack both in those efforts and in our public job training system. Therefore I believe we also need to be sure that those who will benefit the most from any adjustment in immigrant policy will help us to address the underlying problem. We in the Senate cannot originate a revenue measure to fund the new training we authorize here. But it would be a serious mistake to enact a final bill that does not call on employers who have pushed for it and will benefit substantially from it to help pay for the new training authorized in the bill.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, today I introduce the Healthy Americans Act. Colleagues will be hearing more about it because there will be amendments that I will offer on this subject here on the floor of the Senate; and with every bit of ability I have as a Senator, I will push this piece of legislation here and talk about it in my State of Minnesota and around the country. The Healthy Americans Act insures the uninsured; guarantees affordable, comprehensive insurance for all, and ensures quality health care through its patient protection provisions. Let me start out by providing some context, Mr. President. I have two charts beside me to demonstrate my points. In 1987, we had about 32 million Americans who were uninsured. Today, as you can see from this graph beside me, we are up to close to 45 million Americans who are uninsured. Mr. President, since we debated the subject of universal health care coverage several years ago, a debate both of us were very involved in, we have had about a million more people a year who have been dropped from coverage. Assuming the same economic growth with no economic downturn, which is a very rosy assumption, we will continue to see this same kind of a profile where we will get up pretty close to 48 million Americans by the year 2005 who will have no health insurance coverage. So this is still a crisis for many Americans, and this is an issue that walks into the living rooms of many families and stares them in the face. The second chart shows the actual percent of annual family income, on average, that goes to premiums and out-of-pocket payments in the form of deductibles, copays or other amounts of money that people have to spend on health care. It is, I think, very important to look at this. First, what you see is that at the bottom end of the income ladder, families with annual incomes of $30,000 or less are spending an inordinate, and I would say unaffordable, percent of their income for their health care. If you look at families with incomes between $10,000 and $20,000, you can see they are spending on average 8 percent of their income on health care expenses. Then when you look at families with incomes under $10,000, you can see that the average family is paying well over 20 percent of their annual income, and these are the people who can least afford to make that kind of payment. Next, you can see that for families with annual incomes of $30,000 or more, the average amount of that income spent on premiums, deductibles and copays drops to below 5 percent on average--I would say a more affordable amount. But don't forget these are just averages. Many families at every income level are spending more than 10 percent of their family income on health care, especially if someone in the family has a serious illness. That is not affordable. That is not fair. Now if we look back at the same chart we can see what would happen under the Healthy Americans Act. All Americans would pay what they can afford--people should pay what they can afford--but it will be well within their means. For those hardest-pressed families, people would pay no more than \1/2\ percent of their income. Those with higher incomes would pay no more than 3 or 5 percent; and no family, including those with at the highest income levels, would pay above 7 percent of their annual income for health care. So, Mr. President, as you can see, these two charts demonstrate the need to provide coverage for the uninsured and to make health care coverage affordable for all. The Healthy Americans Act does just that. First of all, it covers the uninsured, which I think is the first and most important thing to do. It builds, I say to my colleague from Indiana, on existing State programs. This is universal coverage with maximum flexibility. In addition to covering the uninsured, many of them moderate-income and low-income citizens, we are going to make sure that health care coverage is affordable for all citizens. In other words, we are going to have family protection. So, first, we cover the uninsured. Then we have family protection, and we say no family pays more than 7 percent of family income on health care, and it goes from about 0.5 percent to 7 percent depending on income. We include Medicare recipients as well. The income profile of elderly people is not that high and they need income protection, too. So, again, first, we cover the uninsured, expanding existing programs; second, we have protection for family income; third, we make sure there is a good package of benefits comparable to what we have here in the Congress; fourth of all, we have strong consumer protections, strong patient protections, something we have been talking about every day; fifth of all, we expand coverage to include some needed benefits that are long overdue. In Minnesota, and around the country--it could very well be the case in Indiana, Mr. President--a lot of elderly people are paying well over 30 percent of their monthly income just on prescription drug costs. We cover prescription drug costs and add that benefit to Medicare. We have good, strong mental health parity, and substance abuse coverage as well. And this is, I think, really important. The way all of this comes together for the States is to have a maximum amount of flexibility. And what we are essentially saying to States is, ``Look, here is what we decided in the Senate. We are going to make sure the uninsured are covered. That is phase one. The second thing, we are going to make sure there is protection of family income. The third thing is we are going to make sure there is a good package of benefits, at least as good as what we have in the Congress. The fourth thing that we are going to do is make sure there is good, strong patient protection. If you agree to that, States, there will be Federal money that will go to you on a, roughly speaking, 70-30 matching basis. And you decide how you want to do it. In other words, the funds are there for you to use if you agree to lay out a plan for universal, affordable, comprehensive health care and follow it over the next 4 years. This is a good strategy for going into the next century; it is a good strategy for reaching universal coverage in our country.'' We are offering the States a carrot; not a stick. No State has to do it. There is maximum flexibility. I say to my colleague from Indiana--we are friends even though we do not always agree on issues--we will not have this ideological debate about single payer or ``pay or play'' and all these other things that people do not understand. This piece of legislation, the Healthy Americans Act, leaves it up to the States. This legislation says to Minnesota, let us expand. We are already above 90 percent on the number insured in my State. Let us expand the coverage for these people who still have no insurance. Let us have some protection of family income, a very big issue for a lot of people who are covered but they are paying way more than they can afford, especially when you include the deductibles and copays and the premiums. What we are saying to Minnesota or Indiana or California or New York: Let us cover the uninsured. We can build on what you are already doing with the State Children's Health Insurance Plan, by expanding it to adults and more children. Let us make sure there is family income protection. Let us make sure there is patient protection and a good package of benefits that is comprehensive. And you decide how you want to do it. You decide how you want to do it in Indiana. You decide how you want to do it in Minnesota or California or New York or North Carolina or Florida or New Hampshire or Iowa--you name it. You decide how you want to do it. But the point is, if a State wants to participate--and I think most States will be very interested in participating in this piece of legislation--then there will be Federal grant money that will come on, roughly speaking, a 70-30 matching basis. Mr. President, I would like to talk a little bit about the cost of this, because I do not want to introduce a piece of legislation and treat people in the United States of America as if they do not have intelligence. If we think something is important, then we invest in it. This piece of legislation, as we have costed it out and done our actuarial estimates, goes like this: In the first year--we are just trying to cover the uninsured--it will be $42 billion; year two, it gets up to $48 billion; year three, $62 billion; years four and five-- when we include both coverage for the uninsured and now also providing the family income protection, it gets up to $85 billion, and then, $98 billion. You would add an additional, roughly speaking, $26 billion to $39 billion to that estimate in the last 2 years if you are going to cover Medicare recipients, making sure they do not pay more than 7 percent of annual income for health care coverage and making sure that prescription drug costs are covered. Now, I say to colleagues, the maximum gets to be above $100 billion--we have estimated this to be $137 billion at the very end of this 5 year period. How do we pay for this? I will tell you. We have hundreds of billions of dollars of what many of us have called corporate welfare, a variety of different deductions and tax breaks, many of which I do not believe are necessary. In addition, we have some military weaponry that I think there is a very legitimate debate as to whether or not we need to be spending money on some of these items. And in addition, we take a look at some of the domestic programs that I think people can call into question as to whether or not they are essential. But, Mr. President, my point is that we offset the expenditure. We are not talking about taxpayers paying any more money. But what we are saying is that this is a worthwhile investment. We have a GDP of over $8 trillion, we have an economy at its peak performance, and we are being told that we cannot have universal health care coverage in the United States of America? We are being told that we cannot afford to make sure that every man, woman, and child has decent coverage? That there cannot be some protection of family income? That the uninsured can't be insured? That elderly people aren't able to get the care they need? That some patient protection for the people isn't possible? That is not acceptable. Of course it is possible. Of course we can do this. Of course we can do better as a nation. And that is what this piece of legislation says, Mr. President. I just say to colleagues again that I have been disappointed that we have put this issue of universal coverage off the table. It should be put back on the table. I have had so many conversations with people in Minnesota, poignant conversations--it happens in other parts of the country, too--which are about health care. I will just give but one example. I think I may have given it one time before on the floor. But, after all, the legislation we introduce is all about people's lives. Why else should we be here? It is all about, hopefully, improving people's lives. I will never forget a discussion with a woman whose husband I had met a year earlier. When I met him a year earlier, he was in bad shape. He is a young man, maybe 40 at most, a railroad worker struggling with cancer. And then I met her a year later out at a farm gathering, and she came up to me and she said, ``I want you to come over and meet my husband again, Senator'' or ``Paul.'' ``He's a real fighter. The doctor said he only had 3 months to live, but it's a year later and he's still struggling. He's now in a wheelchair.'' And so we talked. Then she took me aside, and she said, ``Every day is a living hell. Every day I'm battling with these companies to find out what they're going to cover.'' I do not think any American with a loved one who is struggling with an illness or a sickness should have to worry about whether or not there is going to be decent coverage. I think that is unacceptable. I think we can do better in America. I think it is time again to talk about humane, affordable, dignified health care for every man, woman, and child. That is what this Healthy Americans Act does. I love ideas. I am really interested in policy. I am proud of the people who have helped me on this legislation: Dr. John Gilman in my office; Rick Brown, who is with the UCLA School of Public Health; Doctors Nicole Lurie and Steve Miles from Minnesota. I like the fact that the Healthy Americans Act is a decentralized plan. I like that. I like the fact that it is simple. I like the fact that it gives States a lot of leeway, so different States can try different approaches, and we can see what works best. But we do have here, colleagues, a commitment as a nation to make sure those people who are uninsured have health insurance, to make sure families do not go broke and are able to afford health insurance, to make sure it is a package of benefits as good as what we have. Shouldn't the people we represent have as good health care coverage as Members of the Congress have, and shouldn't they be guaranteed strong patient protections? I think this is, in my not so humble opinion, an excellent piece of legislation. I think it is going to take a real battle to get it passed. But I will bring amendments out on the floor. I will do everything I can as a U.S. Senator to bring this to people in the country. I am absolutely convinced that this is one of the most important things we can do as a Senate to respond to a very real issue that affects the lives of so many people we represent.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, today I introduce the Healthy Americans Act. Colleagues will be hearing more about it because there will be amendments that I will offer on this subject here on the floor of the Senate; and with every bit of ability I have as a Senator, I will push this piece of legislation here and talk about it in my State of Minnesota and around the country. The Healthy Americans Act insures the uninsured; guarantees affordable, comprehensive insurance for all, and ensures quality health care through its patient protection provisions. Let me start out by providing some context, Mr. President. I have two charts beside me to demonstrate my points. In 1987, we had about 32 million Americans who were uninsured. Today, as you can see from this graph beside me, we are up to close to 45 million Americans who are uninsured. Mr. President, since we debated the subject of universal health care coverage several years ago, a debate both of us were very involved in, we have had about a million more people a year who have been dropped from coverage. Assuming the same economic growth with no economic downturn, which is a very rosy assumption, we will continue to see this same kind of a profile where we will get up pretty close to 48 million Americans by the year 2005 who will have no health insurance coverage. So this is still a crisis for many Americans, and this is an issue that walks into the living rooms of many families and stares them in the face. The second chart shows the actual percent of annual family income, on average, that goes to premiums and out-of-pocket payments in the form of deductibles, copays or other amounts of money that people have to spend on health care. It is, I think, very important to look at this. First, what you see is that at the bottom end of the income ladder, families with annual incomes of $30,000 or less are spending an inordinate, and I would say unaffordable, percent of their income for their health care. If you look at families with incomes between $10,000 and $20,000, you can see they are spending on average 8 percent of their income on health care expenses. Then when you look at families with incomes under $10,000, you can see that the average family is paying well over 20 percent of their annual income, and these are the people who can least afford to make that kind of payment. Next, you can see that for families with annual incomes of $30,000 or more, the average amount of that income spent on premiums, deductibles and copays drops to below 5 percent on average--I would say a more affordable amount. But don't forget these are just averages. Many families at every income level are spending more than 10 percent of their family income on health care, especially if someone in the family has a serious illness. That is not affordable. That is not fair. Now if we look back at the same chart we can see what would happen under the Healthy Americans Act. All Americans would pay what they can afford--people should pay what they can afford--but it will be well within their means. For those hardest-pressed families, people would pay no more than \1/2\ percent of their income. Those with higher incomes would pay no more than 3 or 5 percent; and no family, including those with at the highest income levels, would pay above 7 percent of their annual income for health care. So, Mr. President, as you can see, these two charts demonstrate the need to provide coverage for the uninsured and to make health care coverage affordable for all. The Healthy Americans Act does just that. First of all, it covers the uninsured, which I think is the first and most important thing to do. It builds, I say to my colleague from Indiana, on existing State programs. This is universal coverage with maximum flexibility. In addition to covering the uninsured, many of them moderate-income and low-income citizens, we are going to make sure that health care coverage is affordable for all citizens. In other words, we are going to have family protection. So, first, we cover the uninsured. Then we have family protection, and we say no family pays more than 7 percent of family income on health care, and it goes from about 0.5 percent to 7 percent depending on income. We include Medicare recipients as well. The income profile of elderly people is not that high and they need income protection, too. So, again, first, we cover the uninsured, expanding existing programs; second, we have protection for family income; third, we make sure there is a good package of benefits comparable to what we have here in the Congress; fourth of all, we have strong consumer protections, strong patient protections, something we have been talking about every day; fifth of all, we expand coverage to include some needed benefits that are long overdue. In Minnesota, and around the country--it could very well be the case in Indiana, Mr. President--a lot of elderly people are paying well over 30 percent of their monthly income just on prescription drug costs. We cover prescription drug costs and add that benefit to Medicare. We have good, strong mental health parity, and substance abuse coverage as well. And this is, I think, really important. The way all of this comes together for the States is to have a maximum amount of flexibility. And what we are essentially saying to States is, ``Look, here is what we decided in the Senate. We are going to make sure the uninsured are covered. That is phase one. The second thing, we are going to make sure there is protection of family income. The third thing is we are going to make sure there is a good package of benefits, at least as good as what we have in the Congress. The fourth thing that we are going to do is make sure there is good, strong patient protection. If you agree to that, States, there will be Federal money that will go to you on a, roughly speaking, 70-30 matching basis. And you decide how you want to do it. In other words, the funds are there for you to use if you agree to lay out a plan for universal, affordable, comprehensive health care and follow it over the next 4 years. This is a good strategy for going into the next century; it is a good strategy for reaching universal coverage in our country.'' We are offering the States a carrot; not a stick. No State has to do it. There is maximum flexibility. I say to my colleague from Indiana--we are friends even though we do not always agree on issues--we will not have this ideological debate about single payer or ``pay or play'' and all these other things that people do not understand. This piece of legislation, the Healthy Americans Act, leaves it up to the States. This legislation says to Minnesota, let us expand. We are already above 90 percent on the number insured in my State. Let us expand the coverage for these people who still have no insurance. Let us have some protection of family income, a very big issue for a lot of people who are covered but they are paying way more than they can afford, especially when you include the deductibles and copays and the premiums. What we are saying to Minnesota or Indiana or California or New York: Let us cover the uninsured. We can build on what you are already doing with the State Children's Health Insurance Plan, by expanding it to adults and more children. Let us make sure there is family income protection. Let us make sure there is patient protection and a good package of benefits that is comprehensive. And you decide how you want to do it. You decide how you want to do it in Indiana. You decide how you want to do it in Minnesota or California or New York or North Carolina or Florida or New Hampshire or Iowa--you name it. You decide how you want to do it. But the point is, if a State wants to participate--and I think most States will be very interested in participating in this piece of legislation--then there will be Federal grant money that will come on, roughly speaking, a 70-30 matching basis. Mr. President, I would like to talk a little bit about the cost of this, because I do not want to introduce a piece of legislation and treat people in the United States of America as if they do not have intelligence. If we think something is important, then we invest in it. This piece of legislation, as we have costed it out and done our actuarial estimates, goes like this: In the first year--we are just trying to cover the uninsured--it will be $42 billion; year two, it gets up to $48 billion; year three, $62 billion; years four and five-- when we include both coverage for the uninsured and now also providing the family income protection, it gets up to $85 billion, and then, $98 billion. You would add an additional, roughly speaking, $26 billion to $39 billion to that estimate in the last 2 years if you are going to cover Medicare recipients, making sure they do not pay more than 7 percent of annual income for health care coverage and making sure that prescription drug costs are covered. Now, I say to colleagues, the maximum gets to be above $100 billion--we have estimated this to be $137 billion at the very end of this 5 year period. How do we pay for this? I will tell you. We have hundreds of billions of dollars of what many of us have called corporate welfare, a variety of different deductions and tax breaks, many of which I do not believe are necessary. In addition, we have some military weaponry that I think there is a very legitimate debate as to whether or not we need to be spending money on some of these items. And in addition, we take a look at some of the domestic programs that I think people can call into question as to whether or not they are essential. But, Mr. President, my point is that we offset the expenditure. We are not talking about taxpayers paying any more money. But what we are saying is that this is a worthwhile investment. We have a GDP of over $8 trillion, we have an economy at its peak performance, and we are being told that we cannot have universal health care coverage in the United States of America? We are being told that we cannot afford to make sure that every man, woman, and child has decent coverage? That there cannot be some protection of family income? That the uninsured can't be insured? That elderly people aren't able to get the care they need? That some patient protection for the people isn't possible? That is not acceptable. Of course it is possible. Of course we can do this. Of course we can do better as a nation. And that is what this piece of legislation says, Mr. President. I just say to colleagues again that I have been disappointed that we have put this issue of universal coverage off the table. It should be put back on the table. I have had so many conversations with people in Minnesota, poignant conversations--it happens in other parts of the country, too--which are about health care. I will just give but one example. I think I may have given it one time before on the floor. But, after all, the legislation we introduce is all about people's lives. Why else should we be here? It is all about, hopefully, improving people's lives. I will never forget a discussion with a woman whose husband I had met a year earlier. When I met him a year earlier, he was in bad shape. He is a young man, maybe 40 at most, a railroad worker struggling with cancer. And then I met her a year later out at a farm gathering, and she came up to me and she said, ``I want you to come over and meet my husband again, Senator'' or ``Paul.'' ``He's a real fighter. The doctor said he only had 3 months to live, but it's a year later and he's still struggling. He's now in a wheelchair.'' And so we talked. Then she took me aside, and she said, ``Every day is a living hell. Every day I'm battling with these companies to find out what they're going to cover.'' I do not think any American with a loved one who is struggling with an illness or a sickness should have to worry about whether or not there is going to be decent coverage. I think that is unacceptable. I think we can do better in America. I think it is time again to talk about humane, affordable, dignified health care for every man, woman, and child. That is what this Healthy Americans Act does. I love ideas. I am really interested in policy. I am proud of the people who have helped me on this legislation: Dr. John Gilman in my office; Rick Brown, who is with the UCLA School of Public Health; Doctors Nicole Lurie and Steve Miles from Minnesota. I like the fact that the Healthy Americans Act is a decentralized plan. I like that. I like the fact that it is simple. I like the fact that it gives States a lot of leeway, so different States can try different approaches, and we can see what works best. But we do have here, colleagues, a commitment as a nation to make sure those people who are uninsured have health insurance, to make sure families do not go broke and are able to afford health insurance, to make sure it is a package of benefits as good as what we have. Shouldn't the people we represent have as good health care coverage as Members of the Congress have, and shouldn't they be guaranteed strong patient protections? I think this is, in my not so humble opinion, an excellent piece of legislation. I think it is going to take a real battle to get it passed. But I will bring amendments out on the floor. I will do everything I can as a U.S. Senator to bring this to people in the country. I am absolutely convinced that this is one of the most important things we can do as a Senate to respond to a very real issue that affects the lives of so many people we represent.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, let me just point out to colleagues that six students were murdered by the Suharto regime. I came out on the floor 2 days ago and talked about the fact that this could happen. These students committed no crime except to courageously say there ought to be freedom in that country. They have had the courage to challenge this government and to speak up for freedom for citizens in Indonesia and for democracy, and to end the persecution against people. And for that, they now have been murdered. I believe that our Government ought to--we ought to use our maximum leverage with international institutions, the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, to make it clear to Suharto that he does not get financial assistance when he murders his citizens. We ought to, as a government, speak up on this. We should not be silent. And we should support these courageous students in Indonesia. I want those students to know they have my full support as a Senator from Minnesota. I yield the floor.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I rise today to oppose S. 1260, the ``Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act of 1997.'' Mr. President, we are considering legislation that would risk imperiling the financial security of those individuals most susceptible to fraud. The American Association of Retired Persons opposes this legislation based on the bill's anti-investment character and the heightened dependence of senior citizens on investment. I find it very odd that in a time when the stock market is doing so well that some of my colleagues are considering exposing Social Security to the vagaries of the booms and busts of Wall Street, we are preventing the states from protecting their citizens from securities fraud. In a time when more Americans are relying on investments for financial security--especially retirees--we are rolling back protections. Many states, my own included, have laws which provide for increased penalties for fraud perpetrated against Seniors and the disabled--the Minnesota statute mentions securities specifically--and Congress has always given the states great leeway in protecting their consumers. In Minnesota, there is an additional civil penalty of $10,000 for each violation where deceptive trade practices, false advertising, or consumer fraud are perpetrated against elderly and disabled persons. Not only are seniors and the disabled at great risk for fraud, they are increasingly becoming investors and they are least able to recoup the income lost. It is devastating for anyone to lose their life savings through a lie, to have their pension wiped out, but for Americans on a fixed income--it will destroy them, Mr. President. I cannot support this legislation. It is bad for investors, it is terrible for seniors and the disabled, and it addresses a problem which does not exist at the expense of consumers. I urge its rejection.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, there are two topics that I would like to cover. I have been trying to get to the floor for 2 days. I will not give either one of them the justice they deserve, but I shall do my best.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I believe that I have reserved 15 minutes, up to 2 o'clock, to speak. I ask unanimous consent that I be able to use this 20 minutes, up to 2, to speak as in morning business.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. In the 2 minutes I have left, I am going to take advantage of being on the floor of the Senate. After all, I always say to my family, you know, I get to speak on the floor of the Senate. That is a huge honor.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, how much time do I have left?

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, as a long-time supporter of Israel and her security, and as a fierce advocate of the Middle East peace process, I commend President Clinton, Secretary Albright, Ambassador Ross, and Assistant Secretary Indyk for their ongoing efforts to preserve and even reinvigorate the stalled peace process. As a member of the Foreign Relations Committee, as a Jewish Senator, as someone who loves Israel, I have followed this latest round of negotiations carefully. I care fiercely about what happens. And I thank the administration for staying engaged and for making a commitment to a peace process that Prime Minister Rabin gave his life for. I will never forget my visit to Israel for his funeral service. It was so moving to hear his granddaughter speak about him. I really hope and pray that we will have a peaceful resolution in the Middle East. I think it will be important for the Israeli children and the Palestinian children, and the children of other Middle Eastern countries as well. I have watched with growing concern, over the past several weeks, as some critics of the administration's policy toward Israel here in the Congress have launched fierce partisan attacks on the policy. Speaker Gingrich last week was even quoted as saying, in a press conference in which he criticized the administration's recent handling of the peace process, ``America's strong-arm tactics would send a clear signal to the supporters of terrorism that their murderous actions are an effective tool in forcing concessions from Israel.'' Mr. President, I think that is a demagogic accusation leveled at the President. I believe that the administration is trying to do the right thing. I point out that public opinion polls show that the majority of the people in our country believe that the administration is doing the right thing by continuing to put proposals out there, by trying to get this peace process going. The administration has presented no ultimatums. It cannot force either party to do what it has no intention of doing. But I think this is courageous on the part of the administration. Quite often I am critical of this President, but I believe they are doing the right thing. The majority of the people in the country believe so, and the majority of the American-Jewish community, of which I am proud to be a member, also believe they are doing the right thing. President Netanyahu is meeting with Secretary Albright. It is my hope that they will have fruitful discussions. I think it is terribly important that this happen. Let me make three points by way of conclusion: First of all, the administration, as I mentioned a moment ago, is not issuing threats. However, the Bush administration--and I don't mean this as a partisan point, but the Bush administration in connection with policy on settlements did threaten to cut off aid to Israel. There have been no conditions of this kind, putting aside whether the Bush administration was right or wrong to do that. I also remind colleagues that this peace process is critically important, that it is important that we bridge the gaps, that the United States be a neutral mediator, that we continue to be a third party to which both parties can speak. Finally, I will simply say that all of us ought to contemplate for a moment what will happen if the administration does not press to preserve this process and if this peace process collapses. I think the alternative scenario, which I shudder to think about, would be an escalation of terrorist attacks, with Israel facing newly hostile Arab neighbors on all sides and increased pressure from the Arab street for violent action against her. It is frightening to consider. I don't think that stalemate or the status quo is acceptable--I believe it is unthinkable. I think it is terribly important the United States continues to show leadership in this process. Mr. President, this recent crisis in the peace negotiations coincides with Israel's celebration of her 50-year jubilee, an occasion of great joy for all of us who love Israel. With the founding of modern Israel, the children of Abraham and Sarah, survivors of over 2,000 years of persecution and exile, were home at last and they were free at last. But the dream of Israel's founder, David Ben-Gurion, and that of his allies was not simply to provide a safe haven from centuries of Jewish suffering, it was also about fulfilling Isaiah's prophecy of making Israel ``a light unto the nations,'' a powerful sign and symbol of justice and compassion to all people of the world. Although it is fitting to pause to celebrate what all the people of Israel have accomplished over the last 50 years, we must also look forward to the tasks which face her in the next millennium, chief among them the task of building a just, secure and lasting peace. It is my deepest prayer that our children and grandchildren, 50 years from this year, will be able to say with gratitude that we were the generation which overcame ancient hatreds and enabled them to achieve a just and lasting peace which has by then embraced the entire region and all the peoples. That is a vision worthy of Israel's founder and of all of us who come after. It is a vision for which we should and we must be willing to struggle, to fight for and for which all of us must take risks. I come to the floor to say that I do not believe there would be anything more important than to forge a just and lasting peace for the region. This would truly be worthy of the dream of Israel's founder. Mr. President, I speak out on the Middle East peace process, again, because I think there has been entirely too much personal attack and I believe it is terribly important that all of us who are committed to the peace process not be silent. (The remarks of Mr. Wellstone pertaining to the introduction of S. 2074 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. WELLSTONE

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