Paul Wellstone

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I thank the steelworkers of America for coming to Washington, DC, today. I think it is a historic gathering. Time is not neutral or on the side of these workers and their families, including the taconite workers in the Iron Range in Minnesota. I could spend hours on our trade policy and the ways in which I do not think we have a fair trade policy. But when you have the best workers who care fiercely about their families and their communities in our country and essentially the dumping of steel and, for that matter, semifinished steel in our market, way below the cost of production in other countries, much less quite often produced at wages that are deplorable wages, the effect is devastating. The request and the demand of the White House, which follows up on an International Trade Commission recommendation, is for a 40-percent import fee. If we get that fee, then we will be able to compete effectively. If we don't get that fee, I think it will be very difficult to see a future for the steel industry in our country. There will be no way we can cover legacy costs, health care costs of retirees; and a whole lot of very decent, good, working people are going to be spat out of this economy. Nobody is asking for a leg up on anybody else. Frankly, when you see the import surge of the last several years--so much of this well below cost of production--and you see the impact on people, you know we ought to do something. So the President has until the beginning of next week to act. We call on him to do the right thing. We believe it is the right thing. There are going to be steelworkers from all across the country today. There are going to be marching bands from high schools from all across the country today. I have been told there may be more than 10,000 steelworkers coming to Washington, DC, for themselves, for their children, their communities, and for the country. I hope their voice is listened to. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Michael Misterek, an intern in our office, be allowed to be on the floor during deliberations today.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I rise today to reintroduce the Mental Health Juvenile Justice Act of 2002. As many of my colleagues know, increasing numbers of children with mental disorders are entering the juvenile justice system. Each year, more than one million children come into contact with the justice system, and twenty percent of those who are incarcerated have a serious mental illness. Many of these children are, in effect, dumped on the justice system because of cuts in mental health services in the community. These children are overwhelmingly poor, a disproportionate number are children of color, and most come from troubled homes. Contrary to what many believe, most children who are locked up are not violent. Justice Department studies show that only one in twenty children in the juvenile system has committed a violent offense. Most children with mental disorders have committed minor, nonviolent offenses or status offenses, such as petty theft or skipping school. Still others have simply run away from home to escape physical or sexual abuse from parents or other adults. Whenever possible, these children should be diverted from the juvenile justice system and toward community-based services, including mental health and substance abuse treatment as needed. Because some children with mental disorders commit serious and violent offenses, it is not always possible to divert them from incarceration. Nevertheless, these children need treatment for their disorders to aid in their inevitable return to the community. Children with mental illness are largely untreated in the current system, although this may contribute to the child's delinquency. The difficult and sometimes deplorable conditions that prevail in detention centers and youth prisons exacerbate the problems of these children. Mental health services both prevent them from committing delinquent offenses and from re-offending. If appropriate mental health care is not provided, our country will pay a higher price in repeated incarcerations, substance abuse, and even suicides. The Mental Health Juvenile Justice Act of 2002, if enacted into law, will go a long way to help address the needs of these children. This measure outlines a comprehensive federal strategy for providing critical assistance to children with mental illness in our juvenile justice system. It would: Train state judges, probation officers, and others on the identification and need for appropriate treatment of mental disorders and substance abuse, and on the use of community-based alternatives to placement in juvenile correctional facilities; Provide block grant funds and competitive grants to the states and localities to develop mental health diversion programs for children who come into contact with the justice system, by strengthening the collaboration of community agencies serving troubled children, and to provide mental health treatment for incarcerated children with emotional disorders; Establish a Federal Council on the Criminalization of Youth with Mental Disorders to report to Congress on proposed legislation to improve the treatment of mentally ill children who come into contact with the justice system; and Remove the most damaging provisions of the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1996, by giving back to the federal courts important tools to remedy abusive conditions in state facilities under which juvenile offenders and mentally ill prisoners are being held. We can no longer ignore this tragedy. The neglect of youth with emotional disturbances in our prisons must end. We as a society have the moral obligation to see that they get the help they need.

Mr. WELLSTONE

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

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

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 10 minutes even though it may be a few minutes beyond 12:30.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I was afraid you might object, Mr. President.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, S. 565 is a very important piece of legislation. It is good work. I thank Senator Dodd and others for their good work. But there are some other issues that are hanging over us like a big cloud. In particular, I am talking about the Federal budget. On February 5, the President sent us a blueprint for this next decade. I have to say that it is a pretty bleak picture. There are cuts in job training programs during hard economic times. There is a 50-percent cut in 7(a) programs to small businesses that leveraged, for example, $1 billion in my State of Minnesota over the last 5 years, in hard economic times. There is an inadequate education budget. I don't know whatever happened to the language ``leave no child behind,'' but I know we are now getting a tin cup budget. We don't have the money for prekindergarten. We don't have the money for afterschool programs. At the same time we have the tax cuts for the top 10 percent of families with incomes of $297,000 and over. At the same time we want to eliminate the alternative minimum tax. At the same time, in the energy bill, we want to give tax cuts maybe to the tune of $28 billion to oil companies that had $40 billion in profits last year. We are going to have to make some choices. Do we put children and education first? Do we put these big corporations and more tax breaks and tax loopholes for these big corporations first? Do we put veterans first? Or are we going to have Robin-Hood-in-reverse tax cuts for the top 1 percent of the population? Are we going to balance the budget to be fiscally responsible, or are we going to be taking the money out of the trust funds? I ask unanimous consent that this article from the New York Times be printed in the Record.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, it is in this context that I read from this article of last week about a new Bermuda Triangle for big businesses where the tax bill goes in, but the check never comes out. The article is entitled, ``U.S. Corporations Are Using Bermuda To Slash Tax Bills.'' It reveals that a number of prominent U.S. corporations using creative paperwork have transformed themselves into Bermuda corporations purely to avoid paying their fair share of U.S. taxes. These new Bermuda companies are purely shell companies. They are shell corporations. They have no staff. They have no offices. They have no business activity in Bermuda. They exist for the sole purpose of shielding income from the IRS. Let me give you a few examples. Ingersoll-Rand is paying Bermuda approximately $28,000 in fees to save itself $40 million in taxes. Stanley Tools intends to recharter in Bermuda and save themselves $30 million a year. Tyco International saved $400 million last year in taxes. The list goes on and on. Small businesses in Detroit Lakes, MN, or Mankato, MN, or in Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN, or in Duluth, MN, cannot avail themselves of the Bermuda Triangle. They cannot afford the big-name tax lawyers and accountants to show them how to do their books Enron style, but they probably wouldn't do it anyway, because the small businesspeople in Minnesota do not want to renounce their citizenship, they do not want to renounce their patriotism, and they want to pay their fair share of taxes as everybody else does. So I say to Senators, as we look at these budget priorities, we are going to have to decide what we are going to be doing. Are we going to go after these tax scofflaws? Are we going to have fair tax relief? Are we going to save Social Security or let them get away with this? This is really outrageous. I simply say that the priority for me, as a Senator, is to go after this ``Bermuda triangle'' boondoggle. The priority for me, as a Senator, is to go after these multinational corporations that will not pay their fair share of taxes. And the priority for me is to make sure that Senators vote so we can all be on record as to whether or not we want more loopholes, more tax breaks for multinational corporations so they do not have to pay their fair share of taxes, and, as a result, we do not invest in children and education. We say we do not have money for affordable prescription drugs. We say there is no money for affordable housing. That is simply outrageous. We say we cannot help anybody with health security for themselves and their families. There are three courses of action I will announce in the Chamber today: No. 1, the letter to the Finance Committee, saying: I call upon you to basically do everything you can do to end this outrageous loophole of these multinational corporations setting up these sham offices in countries such as Bermuda and not paying taxes. No. 2, I say to Senators that on the budget resolution, which will be coming up maybe this month--certainly next month--I am going to have an amendment which says: Find the savings from these big corporations that are not paying their fair share of taxes and are setting up these sham offices in countries such as Bermuda and put it into education and health care. We will have a straight up-or-down vote on that amendment to the budget resolution. Then, No. 3, I want to send a Dear Colleague letter out to Senators, Democrats and Republicans alike. I definitely will introduce legislation. I do not have all the specifics down right now, but it seems to me, at a bare minimum, what we can say to these companies is: Look, you can set up some sham office in some other country as a tax dodge, but if you are doing most of your business in the United States of America, you are going to be taxed on the business you do here. The second thing we can say to these companies is: You get all kinds of tax breaks, you get all kinds of Government help, the assumption being you are investing in our economy. But if you are going to set up these sham offices, if you are going to be involved in this tax avoidance, then you are not going to get any more of these breaks because, frankly, you are not being a good citizen corporation; you are acting a little bit too much like Enron. You are not being very patriotic when you are not willing to pay your fair share of taxes. And, frankly, as Senators, we are sick of the tradeoff. We do not like going back to our States and saying to law enforcement: We are going to have to cut the COPS Program by 80 percent. We do not like to tell small businesses they are not going to have access to low- interest loans. We do not like telling our schools and our children there isn't going to be the money for education. We do not like telling elderly people: God knows for how long all of us who have run for office have promised there will be affordable prescription drugs, but, sorry, we do not have any money to do any of that for you. We do not like telling families who have no health insurance whatsoever: We cannot do anything to help you because we have some of these big corporations, these multinationals, that have done the opposite of being good corporate citizens and basically have set up these elaborate, disingenuous, dishonest, tax evasion schemes. As a Senator from Minnesota, my priority is to make sure they pay their fair share of taxes. That is the very least we can ask of them. Mr. President, other than that, I do not feel strongly about this issue. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I rise today to reintroduce the Mental Health Juvenile Justice Act of 2002. As many of my colleagues know, increasing numbers of children with mental disorders are entering the juvenile justice system. Each year, more than one million children come into contact with the justice system, and twenty percent of those who are incarcerated have a serious mental illness. Many of these children are, in effect, dumped on the justice system because of cuts in mental health services in the community. These children are overwhelmingly poor, a disproportionate number are children of color, and most come from troubled homes. Contrary to what many believe, most children who are locked up are not violent. Justice Department studies show that only one in twenty children in the juvenile system has committed a violent offense. Most children with mental disorders have committed minor, nonviolent offenses or status offenses, such as petty theft or skipping school. Still others have simply run away from home to escape physical or sexual abuse from parents or other adults. Whenever possible, these children should be diverted from the juvenile justice system and toward community-based services, including mental health and substance abuse treatment as needed. Because some children with mental disorders commit serious and violent offenses, it is not always possible to divert them from incarceration. Nevertheless, these children need treatment for their disorders to aid in their inevitable return to the community. Children with mental illness are largely untreated in the current system, although this may contribute to the child's delinquency. The difficult and sometimes deplorable conditions that prevail in detention centers and youth prisons exacerbate the problems of these children. Mental health services both prevent them from committing delinquent offenses and from re-offending. If appropriate mental health care is not provided, our country will pay a higher price in repeated incarcerations, substance abuse, and even suicides. The Mental Health Juvenile Justice Act of 2002, if enacted into law, will go a long way to help address the needs of these children. This measure outlines a comprehensive federal strategy for providing critical assistance to children with mental illness in our juvenile justice system. It would: Train state judges, probation officers, and others on the identification and need for appropriate treatment of mental disorders and substance abuse, and on the use of community-based alternatives to placement in juvenile correctional facilities; Provide block grant funds and competitive grants to the states and localities to develop mental health diversion programs for children who come into contact with the justice system, by strengthening the collaboration of community agencies serving troubled children, and to provide mental health treatment for incarcerated children with emotional disorders; Establish a Federal Council on the Criminalization of Youth with Mental Disorders to report to Congress on proposed legislation to improve the treatment of mentally ill children who come into contact with the justice system; and Remove the most damaging provisions of the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1996, by giving back to the federal courts important tools to remedy abusive conditions in state facilities under which juvenile offenders and mentally ill prisoners are being held. We can no longer ignore this tragedy. The neglect of youth with emotional disturbances in our prisons must end. We as a society have the moral obligation to see that they get the help they need.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, today I opposed the sense-of-the-Senate amendment offered by the Senator from Arizona. Senator Kyl's amendment called for the removal of the sunset date for the estate tax changes made in last year's tax cut package. I opposed it because the proposal was both unfair and unaffordable. The Senator's proposal was unfair because only a tiny number of Americans pay the estate tax under current law. In fact, in 1999 only 636 Minnesotans paid any estate tax whatsoever. This is simply not a burden that falls on many families. That does not mean that I don't support raising the estate tax exemption to a higher level to shield smaller estates--particularly the few small business owners and farmers who end up being affected by the tax. I would support raising the exemption immediately to $4-5 million, with perhaps higher exemptions for small businesses and farms. The current law, as amended last summer, provides for much slower and uneven estate tax relief. It has made the estate tax process much more complicated--not less. And when full repeal phases in in 2010, it will shield the wealthiest estates in America--worth hundreds of millions and even billions of dollars--from any tax liability. That's what the Kyl amendment proposed we make permanent and I think it would be terrible policy. And it is made all the more terrible because it is so expensive. The Kyl proposal would cost $104 billion over the next 10 years--literally to protect a few thousand ultra-wealthy families. Even worse, from 2013-2022 it would cost other taxpayers over $800 billion to provide this ``relief.'' Most of this cost would be financed out of the Social Security surplus and at precisely the moment that the baby boomers start to retire in large numbers. I will not jeopardize Social Security--which tens of millions of Americans rely upon for their retirement--to grant tax breaks to the heirs of multi-millionaires and billionaires. For that reason I opposed the amendment.

Mr. WELLSTONE

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

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, if other Senators are coming down with amendments, I will stop speaking. Otherwise, I will take about 5 minutes now if we have the time.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I ask unanimous consent for 5 minutes as in morning business.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote and lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 2845

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. WELLSTONE. This amendment is a modified version of the amendment I offered last week to reform the EQIP program. The central argument against my amendment last week had to do with a size limitation. What this amendment does is speak to some of the concerns of my colleagues, but it still is very much a reform amendment. No. 1, it would lower the payment limits from $50,000 per year to $30,000 per year with the EQIP program. Right now, it is only $10,000 a year. This is very consistent with the vote last week on payment limitations. No. 2, it would prevent producers with an interest in more than one large CAFO from receiving more than one EQIP contract. This is the whole idea of conglomerates owning many of these CAFOs and receiving multiple subsidies. Again, we want to try to get support to our midsize producers, our family farmers. No. 3, it would require producers receiving the EQIP funds to have a comprehensive nutrient management plan, environmental plan. These are simple measures that I think make the EQIP program have more, if you will, policy integrity. I think it is very consistent with what we have been doing with the farm bill. The last amendment I introduced was a close vote. I think there are now Senators who will support this amendment. We have the support of, among different organizations, the National Farmers Union, the Environmental Working Group, the Land Stewardship Project, Center for Rural Affairs, the Natural Resources Defense Council, Sustainable Agriculture Coalition, U.S. PIRG, and Campaign for Family Farms and the Environment. I think this is a good reform amendment, and I will wait for further debate on the amendment, but I wanted to lay it down now. I ask unanimous consent the amendment be temporarily laid aside.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I am going to start speaking on the amendment. We may or may not make one change. This amendment is a modified version of an amendment I offered last week. It is a reform amendment to the EQIP program. The argument against the amendment I offered last week--which I think was an important amendment for our independent producers and an important amendment for the environment--was that the size limitation meant that midsized farmers could not expand. I actually thought that an operation with over 5,000 hogs was a pretty large operation in the first place. But what I am going to do this time is make some changes, which will, hopefully, give us the vote to go over the top. What this amendment does is comparable to what we have done with crop assistance in the commodity program. Now we have a reasonable payment limit. What we have is a payment limit with the commodity program and, in addition, restrictions on multiple payments and compliance with environmental laws. This amendment would have a reasonable payment limit on EQIP funds. It would restrict producers from receiving multiple EQIP payments. In other words, right now these conglomerates own multiple CAFOs and then get government money for each one of them. It becomes a subsidy in inverse relation to need. And this amendment would require that producers who receive EQIP funds have an environmental plan. At the moment, the direction in which this amendment goes is as follows: It would lower the payment limits from $50,000 per year to $30,000 per year. Right now, the limit is $10,000. Some farmers don't do multiple-year contracts. My point is, just as we had payment limits on an earlier vote with the Dorgan amendment, it seems to me we ought to also have payment limits with the EQIP program, if this environmental program is to have the policy integrity, and if we are not to be giving these payments to some of the largest operations that don't need them. Secondly, it prevents producers with an interest in more than one large CAFO from receiving more than one EQIP contract, which makes all the sense in the world from the point of view of reform. And, again, we are talking about an amendment that has some payment limitation. Finally, it requires the producers receiving the EQIP funds to have a comprehensive nutrient management plan which is an environmental plan. It is a reform amendment. I think we have done a lot of good work on this bill. The vote earlier today on the packer ownership amendment was extremely important. We passed the crop payment limitation by a 66-to- 31 vote, which was an historic vote. If my colleagues are in support of payment limitations, they should support this amendment. This amendment puts some reasonable payment limitations back into the Environmental Quality Incentive Program. Current law caps it at $10,000 per year. The underlying legislation increases the cap to $50,000 a year. That is a fivefold increase. This amendment recognizes the problem we have with the environmental pollution that comes from these large livestock operations, but it places a reasonable payment limit on the program: $30,000 per year up to $150,000 over 5 years. If we don't put some reasonable payment limits on the program, the flow of benefits is going to be just as we have seen with the commodities: huge payments to huge producers; in this case large livestock conglomerates that over the years have been squeezing independent producers out of existence. That is what this amendment is all about. Again, let me be crystal clear. This amendment now deals with the argument that some colleagues made that it is not going to let the midsize operations expand. This amendment is consistent with what we have done on payment limits. It is a reform amendment. This amendment plugs a big loophole with multiple CAFOs which is a huge problem when these conglomerates buy up a lot of these confinement operations and then get a subsidy for each one of them. Finally, this amendment calls for a sound environmental plan, which makes all the sense in world, a comprehensive nutrient management plan. It is a modest amendment. It is a good reform amendment. It is a good environmental amendment. Frankly, it is a good amendment for our independent producers. I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I wonder if I could say a couple of words while we are waiting. That moves us right along. Before the Senator from Iowa leaves, let me say this for the record: I hope there will be support. I certainly would be pleased to not have a recorded vote. I know we are trying to move things along. I ask the Senator from Iowa in a bit of a colloquy here for his support in conference committee to keep this in because my experience has been all too often, when there is not a recorded vote and there is a voice vote, then the amendments get tossed aside. I know my colleague supports this amendment. I certainly ask for his support as the chair in the conference committee. I assume when he nods his head, it means yes.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Chair.

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

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I will stay here and wait patiently for our 3-minute limit, and my colleagues can let me know.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Justin Buoen, who is an intern in my office, be granted the privilege of the floor for the duration of the debate today.