Paul Wellstone

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, as a long-time strong supporter of Israel and her security, and a fierce advocate of the Middle East peace process, I want to commend President Clinton, Secretary Albright, Ambassador Ross and Assistant Secretary Indyk for their ongoing efforts to preserve, and even reinvigorate, the stalled peace process. I was encouraged to read this morning that President Clinton has asked Secretary Albright to forgo the G-7 meeting in Germany in order to meet with Prime Minister Netanyahu while he is here this week in the United States. While they have come under fire recently, as a Member of the Foreign Relations Committee who has for years followed closely the peace process, I believe they should be supported in their efforts to help forge a just and lasting peace for the region by helping the parties to move forward urgently on the Israeli-Palestinian track. About a month ago 81 Senators joined in a letter to President Clinton expressing concern about the Administration's ideas for the next phase of redeployment being made public, about certain of Israel's security concerns, and about final status talks. I did not sign that letter, in part because I believe the Administration should be commended, not criticized, for sticking with this process at a critical time, and for its willingness to press for Israel's legitimate security concerns while recognizing the legitimate claims of the Palestinians. I have watched with growing concern over the past week or so as some critics of the Administration's policy toward Israel here in Congress have launched fierce, often partisan, attacks on that policy. The Speaker, late last week, was even quoted as saying, in a press conference in which he criticized the Administration's recent handling of the peace process, that ``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.'' That is, simply put, Mr. President, a scandalous and demagogic accusation to level at the President, who has been engaged for over a year, along with his senior foreign policy advisors, in a vigorous effort to bring the two sides together at a critical time in the peace process, and to help bridge the gaps that exist between them by offering constructive, creative ideas for each to consider. I understand that this proposal was crafted over many months, and was designed to address many of the Israeli government's most pressing security concerns and to meet many of its criteria for evaluating real progress on these issues. The President has repeatedly made clear that he is not trying to impose a solution on the parties, nor could he. And that he is not issuing ultimatums to anyone--as further evidenced by his willingness to have Secretary Albright reach out again to Mr. Netanyahu this week. After months of on-and-off negotiations, with U.S. envoys shuttling back and forth among the parties, the major points of disagreement have become clear, and President Clinton is now simply offering ideas for them to consider--an approach consistent with America's role at virtually every other critical point in the Middle East peace process over the years. At Camp David, in Madrid, and at subsequent major negotiations, American attempts to bridge the gaps between the parties have played a critical role in reaching final agreement. I have talked with senior American officials involved in the discussions, and remain hopeful that a final agreement will soon be reached. The parties must not miss this key opportunity to move forward in the peace process. Over the weekend Mr. Netanyahu rejected the Administration's offer, which Mr. Arafat had accepted, to come to Washington this week for a summit to agree on terms for a further withdrawal from the West Bank, and to agree to accelerate final status talks provided for in the Oslo Agreement. I understand from news reports that alternative proposals are now being considered by the Israeli government for a 13 percent withdrawal which could happen in two stages--a substantial withdrawal immediately, followed by an additional 2-4 percent withdrawal once Mr. Arafat makes good on certain tough new security commitments he has reportedly agreed to make as a part of the overall agreement. I understand these new arrangements include the kind of strong new Palestinian commitments to fight terrorism which the Israeli government has long been seeking, strengthening the terms of the Memorandum of Understanding negotiated at the end of last year, and providing for a test period before this phase of withdrawal is completed. That is a major victory for Israel, and should help to address legitimate Israeli concerns about the Palestinian Authority's commitment to fighting terrorism. Now I am not an expert, and I acknowledge that I do not know all the details of the various land parcels that are being discussed. But it is clear that on the issue of land, some progress is possible. Let us not forget that the Palestinians had originally sought a 30 percent withdrawal from the West Bank, as the first in a 3-phase withdrawal to which Israel agreed--though the timing and extent of each withdrawal were not explicitly established. So the Palestinians had sought a 30 percent withdrawal, the Israelis offered just under ten percent, and the Administration has been pressing for a compromise of 13 percent. Mr. Netanyahu has reportedly now privately agreed to a withdrawal of about 11 percent. I understand that Mr. Arafat has also agreed, as a condition for attending a Washington summit meeting with President Clinton and Mr. Arafat, to allow the next redeployment to be considered alongside final status talks, by a joint Palestinian-Israeli Committee, operating on a parallel track. The American proposal also reportedly contemplates greater flexibility on the Oslo timetable, which had been set to conclude by May 4, 1999. Each of these changes would be significant achievements for Israeli negotiators. Let me make four points about this situation, Mr. President. First, despite all of the recent (frequently partisan) criticism of the Administration, recent polls both here and in Israel show substantial support for further progress in the peace process. And this includes polls of Jewish Americans, of which I am proud to be one. Indeed, I read about a poll last week which noted that a substantial majority of Jewish Americans polled agreed that the U.S. in this process was doing just what we should be doing--offering ideas, facilitating discussions, working with the parties on alternative formulations which could meet all of their legitimate security and other interests. Second, let me remind my colleagues, especially those who have offered such fierce criticism of the Administration's efforts in recent days, of the need for a sense of proportion. Let me point out that the Administration is not threatening, as the Bush Administration did with settlement assistance, to cut off any kind of aid to Israel in this dispute. It is simply playing the role mediators should play in offering creative ideas, and allowing the parties to make their own decision about whether those ideas are acceptable to them. Third, let me commend the Administration on remaining engaged in the peace process, a process for which many Israelis--including most recently Prime Minister Rabin--have given their lives. President Clinton has been a strong friend of Israel, and the Administration is right to press the parties to come to a final agreement, to offer solutions which can bridge gaps, to ensure that proposals are on the table from a neutral mediator which one side could perhaps not accept from their adversary, but could accept from a third party. The administration has done so, I believe, because it knows that the success of these efforts is crucial to fulfilling longstanding American commitments to preserve the peace process, ensure Israel's security, enhance regional stability, and protect U.S. interests in the Middle East. Most urgently, the President recognizes that without a peaceful permanent resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Israel's security--clearly a vital U.S. interest--can never be guaranteed. Let us not forget one thing in all of this, Mr. President: peace is the ultimate guarantor of Israel's security. Finally, let me ask my colleagues to contemplate what could happen if the Administration did not press to preserve this process, and it collapsed--as it almost surely would without such intervention. An alternative scenario, with the peace process in a shambles--an escalation in terrorist attacks, Israel facing newly hostile Arab neighbors on all sides, and increased pressure from the Arab street for violent action against her--is frightening to consider. Some here in Washington act as if the Israeli-Palestinian stalemate of the past fifteen months does not pose dangers for all sides. I think they are wrong. It poses very grave dangers to Israel, to the Palestinians, and to the whole region. That's why the President's approach of urging the parties to uphold their commitments, facilitating ongoing contacts and negotiations, helping each side understand the other's legitimate security and other needs, and presenting creative ideas intended to help bridge gaps between the parties, makes sense. Senator Feinstein observed on the floor last week that the Administration's attempts to facilitate an agreement between the parties efforts were ``principled, worthy efforts . . . grounded in a deep commitment to Israel's security.'' I agree with that assessment, and join her, Senator Lautenberg, and others in calling for restraint by my colleagues who have unfairly criticized the Administration during this difficult and sensitive time in the peace process. Of course, offering principled, thoughtful critiques of Administration foreign policy-making is a legitimate role of Congress, an important aspect of our system of checks and balances. But it is a right accompanied by a responsibility to be fair and informed. Mr. President, the 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 Sara, survivors of over 2000 years of persecution and exile, were home at last and free at last. But Israel's founder David Ben-Gurion's dream, 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 peoples of the world. Although it's fitting that we pause this year to celebrate all that the people of Israel have accomplished over these past 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, fifty 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 its peoples. That is a vision worthy of Israel's founder, and of all those who come after. It is a vision for which we should and must be willing to struggle, to fight for, for which all must continue to take risks. Prime Minister Netanyahu is coming to the U.S. this week, and will be meeting with Secretary Albright. I have heard from sources both in the Administration and in Israel that the Israeli government is actually close to reaching internal agreement on a variation of the Administration's proposed plan. I hope that is true, and that all the parties will reassess their positions in light of recent developments, and agree this week to take one more important step toward resolving this longstanding and bitter dispute, thereby helping to forge a just and lasting peace for the region worthy of Israel's founders' dream.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I will try to do this in 3 minutes. First of all, I say to my colleague from Texas, what he is now willing to do is hold up, delay, and potentially kill, crop insurance, which is extremely important to farmers in Minnesota and across the country, and research on alternative uses for agriculture products, crop disease, and research on scab disease in northwest Minnesota. He is willing to do this because he thinks there is some terrible wrong in this bill. I think it is a right. I think we are doing something that lives up to the very best in America. I say to my colleague and to people in the country, my colleague from Texas wants to hold this bill up because he finds it to be an offensive proposition that we should say that for legal immigrants we will make sure there is some assistance for those people who are elderly, disabled, and for small children. The Physicians for Human Rights released a report this past week finding an alarming amount of hunger and malnutrition among these legal immigrants. Food stuff use is on the rise. In the United States of America today at the peak of our economic performance we have people who are hungry and in jeopardy. What we ought to do here is restore some assistance for these legal immigrants. These asylees and refugees are people who have fled oppression in countries like Indonesia, China, you name it. They come to our country in the hope that we would be willing to extend a helping hand. My colleague from Texas talks about that as if it is a bad thing to do. I thought that is what we were about--people who fled persecution, people who were legal immigrants. Many of them were parents. My dad fled persecution from Russia. For the U.S. Senate to say, ``Look, we want to correct the harshness. We want to make sure there is some assistance for you to make sure you don't go hungry if you are elderly, if you are disabled, if you are a small child, if you fled persecution from a country.'' That is the right thing to do. Certainly we ought not to be holding up the agriculture research bill, which is so important to agriculture in our country and so important to farmers in Minnesota. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Mikki Holmes, an intern, be allowed on the floor for the duration of this debate.

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

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Given what the Senator just said about Tiananmen Square, given the courage, again, of the students and others, that is why I wish the President would not go to Tiananmen Square. I think the President is making a terrible mistake. I didn't think the President should be there. I will just make that comment to my colleague.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Will the Senator yield for a comment?

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, the context of my speech on the floor of the Senate today is as follows. I have been, as the Senator from Minnesota, moved by the courage of students in Indonesia who are challenging a very repressive government. They do this at great risk. But they have shown the courage to speak out. President Suharto has left for a conference in Egypt and has made it crystal clear that students and others in Indonesia who dare to speak out will suffer the consequences. The Suharto regime has been corrupt; it has been repressive. There are many reports by all of the reputable human rights organizations of people being arrested, tortured, raped, killed, or they have disappeared. It is in this environment that these young people in Indonesia now step forward with a tremendous amount of courage to speak for freedom and democracy in their country--Indonesia. It is for this reason that as a U.S. Senator I come to the floor of the Senate to support them. It is for this reason I have sent this letter to the President. It is my hope that our Government, and all of us here in the Senate and in the House of Representatives, will make it clear to Mr. Suharto that we will not turn our gaze away from this repressive government, and that we will support these students and other citizens in Indonesia who speak out for the very things that make our country such a wonderful country--freedom, the right to be able to dissent, democracy. Mr. Pius Lustrilanang, a prominent opposition leader, was abducted earlier this year and was detained for 2 months. He talks about the ways in which his captors beat him, administered electric shocks to his hands and feet, in an attempt to discover details of his political activity. His political activities were political activities we take for granted. He was writing, speaking, and doing things people should be able to do in their countries. Student leaders of the People's Democratic Party, which was banned last September, have been arrested and sentenced to terms of up to 13 years. Students, young people--I say to pages who are here--your age, have been sentenced to 13 years in prison. What was their crime? They organized worker rallies, they called for a referendum on East Timor, and they were campaigning for a more open political system; in other words, for the right of people to be able to organize and to speak out. They now are faced with 13-year prison sentences. I am concerned about what is now happening in Indonesia. I think our Government should be stronger in our support of the students and for the men and women who are speaking up for democracy and human rights in Indonesia. I commend the Pentagon's recent decision to cancel a joint training exercise with the Indonesian military. But I am deeply troubled by reports that the United States may have been involved in training with the Indonesian special forces, which has really become or is known as a very brutal military unit responsible for the torture, the midnight raids, and the frequent disappearance of citizens. Mr. President, in addition in this letter that I have sent to President Clinton, I raise questions about the ways in which we bail out a regime which grows more repressive day by day. The infusion of capital by the IMF makes ``economic'' reform a condition for the bailout. I am not sure the IMF prescription has helped. I have said on the floor before that I am an internationalist. I think we ignore the world at our own peril. I think economic development support is critically important, as is humanitarian assistance. I sometimes think the IMF just pours fuel on the fire. In this particular case, the Government says it is raising fuel prices and taking other action like this in response to the IMF, which, of course, imposes additional pain and hardship on the poor, not on Suharto and his family. But, in any case, it seems to me that if we are truly concerned about the welfare of the Indonesian people, our continuing funding should be contingent upon greater political openness and improvement in Indonesia's human rights record. I don't know why the administration--President Clinton, the administration, our Government; really, the President speaks for our Government--I don't know why we are not more insistent on these governments who attack, torture, rape, and murder their citizens to abide by elementary standards of decency. In some kind of way, we should make some of our assistance contingent upon this. Surely we can at least speak up. Surely we can at least send a clear signal to the Suharto regime that we support democracy, that we support fair labor practices, that we support human rights, and that we will not stand by idly as this regime, the Suharto regime, continues to repress its citizens. I come to the floor of the Senate today to speak for the students. I come to the floor of the Senate today to call on the President to speak for the students, courageous students, courageous young people, who I believe are capturing the imagination of Indonesia. They are lighting a candle with their courage. And I think the President and I think the U.S. Congress and the United States of America ought to be on their side. I yield the floor. Mr. DORGAN addressed the Chair.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a letter that I have sent to the President, which expresses my concern about the ongoing human rights abuses in Indonesia, be printed in the Record.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I also say to my colleague from Utah that I hope he continues with his ``obsession,'' as he described it, because we really need his leadership. I am grateful to him for the important work he is doing.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. I am pleased to work with Senator Grams on this amendment. I thank both the chairman of the committee, Senator Roth, and Senator Kerrey for all of their help. This is very important to people. If you visit people in communities that have been devastated by tornadoes in our State, to be able to have forgiveness of interest on late payment of taxes is extremely important. It seems to be a little thing, but it is real important to people in our State. It has been a pleasure working with Senator Grams on this. I think we have done well. This will help people in our State. We thank all of our colleagues for their assistance.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, let me ask unanimous consent that Senator Cleland be also listed as an original cosponsor.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Madam President, my colleagues from North Dakota, Senator Conrad and Senator Dorgan, said it well moments ago when they were speaking about the Wall Street Journal piece that came out yesterday, Tuesday, May 5 regarding what has to be described as a farm crisis. In this piece, former Secretary of Agriculture Bob Bergland is quoted. Jim Tunheim, a State legislator from northwest Minnesota, is also quoted. I want to talk about what is happening in my State of Minnesota because I believe it will be incumbent upon all of us here in the Senate and in the House of Representatives as well to take some action. I was at a gathering in Crookston, MN some weeks ago. As I walked into the school, there was a sign posted outside that said, ``Farm Crisis Meeting''. It brought back awful memories of the mid-1980s when I went to probably hundreds of farm crisis meetings. What I saw then all across Minnesota were foreclosures; people being driven off their farms where they not only lived but where they worked as well. I saw a lot of broken dreams and a lot of broken lives and a lot of broken families. This is now happening again. This very fine piece in the Wall Street Journal talks about this farm crisis in very personal terms. I want to say to colleagues that I know of no other way to say it. Some 2 years ago, when we passed what was called the Freedom to Farm bill, I called it then the Freedom to Fail bill. And I think that is exactly what is happening. All of the discussion about the market presupposes that we have Adam Smith's invisible hand in agriculture. But what we have instead is a food industry where the conglomerates have muscled their way to the dinner table exercising raw economic power over farmers, consumers, taxpayers, and family farmers. Wheat farmers, corn growers and other farmers--vis-a-vis these large companies that they deal with don't have very much clout at all. This was a good bill for some of the big grain companies. There are only a few. But it was not a good bill for family farmers. Now, in northwest Minnesota, a combination of dealing with scab disease, wet weather over the last several years, and, most important of all, this Freedom to Farm bill, which has driven prices down, which doesn't give the farmers a loan rate to have some leverage in the market, which doesn't give them a safety net, is driving farmers off the land. We need to take some action. The Secretary of Agriculture supports lifting the cap on the loan rate. And we can legislatively try to raise that loan rate so that we can give farmers a price in the marketplace. I just want to say to my colleagues, I told you so. That is the way I will put it. I told you so. And northwest Minnesota is just a harbinger of what is going to happen across this country. Prices are low. Farmers are being driven off the land. There is a tremendous amount of economic pain. And it is not just the farmers. It is the communities where they live, where they go to church or to synagogue, where they buy their products, where they send their kids to school. We have a serious crisis in northwest Minnesota. I am hearing from farmers in other parts of my State as well. I think rural America is going to go through some economic convulsions as a result, in part, of this legislation that we passed. We have to give farmers a fair price in the marketplace. We secured them some loan funding in the disaster appropriations bill we passed last week, which gives them at least some loan assistance for spring operations. But it doesn't make that much difference long-term. It can keep them going for awhile, but if they don't get a decent price in the marketplace, they don't have a prayer. That is what this piece in the Wall Street Journal is about. That is why I come to the floor of the Senate. I look forward to working with my colleagues, Democrats and Republicans alike, who come from farm States. We have to do something. We are here to try to do well for people. We have to do better for family farmers in Minnesota and across our country. I thank my colleague from Texas again for his graciousness, and I yield the floor.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Madam President, I thank my colleagues for their graciousness, and I especially thank Senator Gramm of Texas. I appreciate it.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent for 5 minutes to speak as if in morning business.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I mentioned to staff and other Senators but I didn't share the comments on the floor, and I didn't mention the really fine work of Mark Powden and Dwayne Sattler. I appreciate their work. I mentioned some people who I had a chance to work with. I forgot to mention others. I was feeling guilty. I thank the Senator for the 15 seconds.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I won't use anymore time. I yield the floor.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I don't see other Senators on the floor right now. I might just highlight some amendments to this piece of legislation, to make maximum use of time. There are five amendments to the bill which we have agreed to accept. The first is one by Mr. DeWine. It is the vocational rehabilitation bill. It is extremely important. I think what Senator DeWine has done is basically provided a set of improvements to this piece of legislation. It is an amendment that I strongly support. There is an amendment by Senator Lautenberg which gives units of local government which are currently service delivery areas under the Job Training Partnership Act, and which have a population of 200,000 or more, an automatic right to appeal to the Secretary of Labor a decision by a Governor not to continue that area as an SDA. That also is an amendment which I support. There are two other amendments by Senator Ashcroft which I will my colleague, the chairman, Senator Jeffords, to speak to if he chooses.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, first of all, let me thank Chairman Jeffords for his leadership. He had a lot to do with this piece of legislation. We did a lot of work on the Subcommittee on Employment and Training, but Senator Jeffords and Senator Kennedy were absolutely critical to bringing this piece of legislation finally to the floor and keeping all of us together. Senator DeWine--it was really a labor of love working with him. He has just put all of himself into this piece of legislation. He has done a great job. I would also like to thank a couple of other people: On Senator Kennedy's staff, Jeff Teitz, who is out on the floor with me today, for his work, and Brian Ahlberg who works with me and has put hundreds of hours into this, as have a number of other very talented people. I am not going to go into all of the specific provisions. I really want to take some time to thank some people who helped out. But let me just say, S. 1186, the Workforce Investment Partnership Act, is an important piece of legislation. The President correctly observed that the bill is ``essential to widening the circle of opportunity for more Americans and keeping our economy growing steady and strong.'' My concern all along has been that over the past couple of years there has been some discussion about cutting funding for job training programs. That would be the worst thing in the world for us to do. I think what we have now done, in a bipartisan way, is we brought people together around to job training that really takes root at the community level. We are talking about a program that is more streamlined. We decentralize it. There are accountable job performance measures, as there should be. The Governors have a key role to play, but they are in partnership with local communities. And at local levels of government, whether they be county or city, you have key decisionmakers as well. The private sector is an essential part of this, as should be the case, because a lot of these jobs that will be created will be in the private sector. We are talking about, you know, that goal that I think is the most important goal for most families in our country, which is to earn a decent living and to be able to raise your children successfully. This is all about doing that. In addition, we have kept separate funding for adults and youth and dislocated workers. We don't have a straight block grant program; we keep our priorities at the national level. I think we should do that. The out-of-school youth initiative is extremely important, targeting funds to youth in high-poverty areas, both urban and rural. Please colleagues--and I don't think too many colleagues make this mistake, but quite often when we talk about ``youth'' or ``lack of jobs'' or ``young people dropping out of schools'' or ``inadequate housing'' or ``inadequate education'' or ``affordable child care'' or ``affordable health care,'' we think about these issues as urban issues. These issues are every bit as important to rural America. The problems are more hidden but they are no less real. The nice thing about the out-of- school initiative is that it is already paid for. Congress has already provided $250 million in an advance appropriation. I want to take special note of the contribution of Hennepin County Commissioner Peter McLaughlin, who testified at one of our subcommittee hearings. I want to also take note of our important national job training programs that we have renewed. The Job Corps Program, we have the Hubert H. Humphrey Job Corps Center in Saint Paul, which is one of the best performing centers in the country. Last year, we had Ralph DiBattista and Dave McKenzie, the current director--Ralph was a former director--at a hearing on youth training. They were joined by Susan Lees, who is an impressive young trainee at the center, on her way to becoming an auto technician at the Ford dealership. The bill also renews current Native American programs and migrant and seasonal farm worker programs. And finally the veterans program--I want to say to the veterans community, we heard from you loud and clear. You wanted to have a separate focus on veterans programs, a separate funding stream. We have some additional provisions by way of eligibility to make sure that gulf war veterans, some of whom are really struggling, will be well served; as well as homeless veterans. We have also built into this bill the continuation of Concentrated Employment Programs, rural CEPs. That is to say, in rural areas where there is high concentration of unemployment and poverty, we have a special focus to make sure the job training is out there. I think--and many colleagues have worked on this but I get to say it on the floor of the Senate, with some pride--this is a very Minnesota- like program. The one-stop centers, we have been doing that in our State. The idea of decentralization, of trying to build good partnerships between the Governor and the local community, trying to build good partnerships between the public and private sector with a focus on good job training, good skills development, and job opportunities for people. Job opportunities for people--I can't really think of anything more important for us to be focusing our attention on. So, I want to make it very clear that I am very, very proud of this piece of legislation. I thank my colleagues again--Senator DeWine, Senator Jeffords, and Senator Kennedy as well. Mr. President, how much time do I have left?

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask if, after 10 minutes, I might be so notified?

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to my colleague, Senator Kerrey, from Nebraska.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Chair.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Jana O'Leary, who is an intern in my office, be allowed to be in the Chamber for the duration of this debate.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, let me speak about the same issue which my colleague has spoken about. As I talk to other Senators, I think we are going to hear the same thing that Senator Cleland from Georgia, I say to the chairman of the Finance Committee, was saying--that in his State it is the same issue. In my State of Minnesota, it is the same issue. I have essentially the same amendment that Senator Grams has. I think we can all join in one effort. That is the way it should be. What we are saying--and what my colleague said happened in St. Peter really put it best--I make this appeal to colleagues. This is just a matter of, I guess, just trying to help people out. People have enough on their minds. There has been such devastation. The last time around when we dealt with the devastation of the flooding in Minnesota and a number of other States, we were able to get not only an extension on the filings of the IRS tax forms but also, in addition, an extension on the actual payment. Along with that, we had congressional action which led to a forgiveness on the interest for late payments. But that did not automatically exempt. So this effort that a number of us have been working on is a terribly important amendment. I think both Senators from Minnesota and other Senators from other States who have been hit with these disasters just in the last several months this year would provide some help to people. That is what it is all about--providing help to people. It is my hope--in talking with other Senators and we had a discussion in the caucus at lunch as we look at whether or not it is a relevant amendment--it is certainly my belief this meets that test. This deals with a specific provision already in this bill that deals with the forbearance on interest payments and, therefore, I think it would meet the test of relevant amendments. I know that will be one of the questions that will be raised by my colleagues. I join in with Senator Grams and with Senators from other States, all of whom really feel we want to try to get this done, and we want to try to get this done on this bill. We will have a chance later on to come out here and speak about our amendments, although I think the floor amendments will essentially merge into one amendment. I make an appeal to colleagues--Democrats and Republicans, Republicans and Democrats alike--to please give us your support. This is very important to the people in our State. I yield the floor.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, let me just briefly speak to one major public policy question that we will deal with in the U.S. Senate. I want to talk about something that has happened in the past couple of years which has had a major impact on the lives of people in Minnesota and across the country. I think people are scratching their head and trying to figure out when we had a referendum on this or when we voted. The topic is all the ways in which large insurance companies are dominating managed health care plans, all the ways the pendulum has swung so far in the other direction. Many citizens that need the care cannot get the care they needed. Jenna Johnson is only 15 years old. She suffers from cerebral palsy, seizures and a deteriorating condition called dystonia, which causes her to lose most of the muscle control in her body. She takes multiple prescription medications, undergoes countless hours of physical therapy, and relies on special medical equipment to live her life. Her treatments have nearly broken her body, colleagues, but her spirit and determination remain firmly intact. In the spring of 1966 Jenna's dystonia worsened. She was fragile from weight loss caused from the 22 pills she took daily to combat her symptoms. The medication caused serious side effects, ranging from damage to her stomach lining to psychotic episodes. The Johnsons found a specialist, a world-renowned pediatric surgeon in Pittsburgh that was an expert in treating conditions similar to Jenna's. He had the expertise in testing and surgery to place an internal pump and catheter to deliver medication. To make a long and very painful story short, this procedure was Jenna's only hope. She was slipping away before her parents' eyes. Minnesota is a great health care State. We have the University of Minnesota. We have the Mayo Clinic. Many people from other States-- Delaware, Nebraska or Arkansas--quite often are referred to our State. But in this particular case, the expert that could help was a pediatric surgeon in Pittsburgh. The doctor was out of the plan and out of the State and the Johnsons were out of luck. The request for the procedure was immediately denied. After an appeals process of more than 30 days and countless visits to local doctors and letters to doctors in Pittsburgh and the HMO, the Johnson's plan finally allowed Jenna to undergo the procedure. It is wrong, Madam President, when a sick child and her family have to spend all of their time and energy fighting their health plan to get the care their child needs. Let me just simply say that, again, Jenna has had to struggle with the illness. Again, the Johnsons had to try to figure out how to get additional help. And again, after many appeals, the care was first denied and finally given care. I want to simply point out what has now happened is that the Johnsons have been switched to another HMO and they have been told that any additional care that Jenna might need will be denied outright. Any additional care this courageous 15-year-old young woman will need will be denied. They are out of luck. The Johnson's family is at their wit's end. Jenna's family has joined several HMOs and they can still not find one that will provide the most basic of medical needs without dealing with an overly burdensome corporate review. Now, let me just quote Jenna's mother, if I could, because I think this gets to what we are dealing with. Her mother, Cynthia, stated, ``Why, at a time of crisis, is emergency medical care denied? . . . If my daughter should have another emergency, what will we do?'' She feels vulnerable. She wants to get the care for her daughter, and because of the current situation in our country, she can't do it. Now, Madam President, the pendulum has swung way too far. We talked about containing costs. Fine. But where is the protection for consumers? What happens to families that are dealing with chronic illnesses? What happens to families that need specialty care? What happens to families who are trying to get the best possible care for their children? We have now moved to a system in our country which is increasingly corporatized and bureaucracized, where the bottom line has become the only line. We need to make sure that there is some protection for consumers. I think there are three issues, and I will summarize them: One, who gets to define ``medical necessity?'' It is outrageous that doctors, nurses, nurse practitioners and nurse assistants, who know what needs to be done in treating a child like Jenna, or an adult, today find themselves unable to provide the kind of care they thought they would be able to provide to people when they were in medical and nursing school. They should be making the decision. Secondly, it is just outrageous--we are talking about something called point-of-service option; people find themselves moved from one plan to another, from one year to another, and all of a sudden you have seen a doctor or have been to a clinic with your children and you are canceled out. You no longer have an option of being able to see a doctor or a clinic that has taken care of you and your children for a decade plus. All the trust, all the rapport, all of what makes for good medicine, goes out the window. Finally, we have to make sure that if we are going to pass a strong Patient Protection Act we have offices of consumer affairs in every State. They are independent with ombudsman that can be advocating for people. Family USA has done some fine work on this. It is not just an 800 number for people to call. People need to call a number, there needs to be an office that is there for consumers, where people can say, ``I was denied care, what do I do,'' and you have a skillful person that can be there as an advocate for people. I am saying to my colleagues, especially my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, I don't know how many days we have left, probably fewer than 50 days or thereabouts. We have to get going on this. We have to get going on this. We have an important effort on the floor this week, bipartisan effort, which I think reflects some very fine work. But overall we have not been doing a lot. We have not been doing a lot about making sure there is good health care for people. We have not been doing a lot by way of being there for consumers. We have not been doing a lot by way of making sure that children come to school at age 5, kindergarten, knowing the alphabet, knowing colors, shapes and sizes, knowing how to spell their name, having been read to, and ready to learn. We have not been doing much by way of making sure that we move toward some system of universal health care coverage. There are over 40 million people that are uninsured. There are other families that are paying more than they should pay. There needs to be some income protection for them. What about a package of benefits for every citizen in the country comparable to what we have? What ever happened to the battle cry that we should pass legislation to make sure the people we serve have as good a health care as what we have? What about the strong patient protection? I have a bill called the Healthy Americans Act, which I am introducing this week, which is a strategy to move toward universal coverage and says to Arkansas, Nebraska or Minnesota, if you agree to the national framework, there will be Federal grant money available to you to reach universal coverage. You decide how you want to contain costs. You decide how you want to deliver the care. We have to move toward that system of care. We haven't done that. We are not there on health care. We are not there on investment in children and education. We are not there on strong consumer protection, and we are not there on a lot of issues that are very important to working families and communities. This issue of whether or not the U.S. Senate is on the side of big insurance companies or the consumers will be a litmus test for all of us. After we get done with this bill, let's get a lot of this substantive legislation on the floor. My hope is--and I will finish on this--that I won't have to have an amendment calling for a vote on James Hormel, but rather will bring that to the floor and make sure we do that as well. Mr. HUTCHINSON addressed the Chair.