Paul Wellstone

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. I reserve the remainder of my time, and I will yield on your time.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, let me explain my challenge. I have to thank Senator Pryor from Arkansas, who has been so diligent on these issues, and also Senator Kennedy from Massachusetts. Mr. President, in the dark of night, in this conference committee for this bill, the insurance reform bill, there was a provision that was put in, which was a 2-year patent extension for a prescription drug called Lodine. I think the effect of this would be that for 5 years it would be impossible for consumers to purchase a generic drug. My understanding is that the manufacturer is paying the Federal Government $10 million each year, or $20 million, because this would be additional costs, since the Medicaid assistance would go up more than it would if in fact consumers had access to the generic drug. In addition, the company will be providing reimbursements to some of the States because of the additional Medicaid costs. The problem, Mr. President, is that this is a gigantic ripoff for the rest of the consumers because the generic drug would give consumers access to affordable treatment, those who are suffering from arthritis. So that, I think, is egregious. Clearly, I think it is the wrong thing for us to do. The point of this challenge, however, has to do with the process. There was an attempt to stick this provision into the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee, and there was a very strong letter from Senator Pryor and Senator Chafee saying, don't do that. But this was stuck into the committee late at night, not known to very many Members. It had never really passed out of any committee. It hadn't passed out of any committee in either House, certainly not the two committees with jurisdiction over this legislation. Therefore, it was not within the scope of this conference committee to stick this provision in. So, Mr. President, my point and the reason that I raise this point of order is that I think what was done really was a violation of the way the process is supposed to operate. On a very legal, technical point, it was a violation. This had not been dealt with by committee in either House. Mr. President, I have to say, I was a college professor and used to teach political science courses, and I knew conference committees were called the third House of the Congress, but I had no idea that this kind of action could be taken, really, in the dark of night, not an open process, not accountable to the citizens of the country. It was the wrong thing to do, and it is for this reason that I raise this point of order and that I appeal the ruling of the Chair.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I appeal the ruling of the Chair.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I raise a point of order against the conference report under rule XXVIII, paragraph 2, because provisions contained in section 281 of the report were inserted by the conferees, and such provisions constitute ``matter not committed to them by either House.'' They have, therefore, exceeded their authority, in violation of rule XXVIII, paragraph 2.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, what is the regular order?

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Senator. Madam President, I would like to thank the Chair, and I would like to thank the majority leader for discussions and bargaining in good faith. I very much appreciate the action taken. I thank you.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I will be very brief. Mr. President, I have sent a letter to my colleagues about the inclusion of the extension for the patent of the drug Lodine in the health insurance conference report and announced my intention to raise a point of order about this, since a similar provision was not included in either the House or the Senate bill. Whatever the intentions of whoever inserted this into conference committee report in the dark of night--and I don't know what their intentions were--certainly the impact of this provision on consumers will be disastrous. Moreover, granting such an extension in the dark of night is not the way to legislate. So all of my colleagues have a letter announcing my intent to challenge this provision on a point of order. I am also considering offering a concurrent resolution to delete this provision from the conference report. My hope is that we can get bipartisan support for this effort, in which case, one way or the other, we can knock this special interest giveaway out of conference committee report. I want to state to my colleagues that this patent extension that we see before us for the manufacturer of Lodine essentially means that for a period of 2 years, and in effect over a period of 5 years because of the way the provision is written, cheaper versions of the prescription drug will not be made available to consumers. People who are suffering from arthritis and are not able to buy a cheaper drug will pay millions of dollars that they should not have to. This is really outrageous. When I was a college professor, I talked about conference committees, and I knew they were kind of the third House of the Congress, but I had no idea that this type of thing happened all the time, or some of the time. But it should not happen any of the time. What we have here is a company that sells over a quarter of a billion dollars worth of a drug, willing to pay the Government $10 billion a year for the additional costs that the patent extension will cost the Government in increased Medicaid and health care costs, but not willing to do anything for consumers and seniors. And quite frankly, the payments to the Government are nothing compared to the ripoff of seniors and consumers. I hope that we may be able to do something about this situation together, in a bipartisan way. I believe that Senator Kennedy, Senator Kassebaum, and many other Senators will be interested in doing that one way or the other. I started talking about this yesterday when I realized that, in the dark of night, this provision had been inserted, and one way or the other I am going to take action as a Senator from Minnesota to do everything I can to knock this provision out. This provision represents a giveaway to a special interest at the expense of patients and senior citizens, and, quite frankly, the mysterious manner in which it was added to the conference report late at night is not the way we ought to be conducting our affairs here. This is a perfect example of the kind of practice that makes people lose confidence in our political process. Therefore, I hope all Senators, Republicans and Democrats alike, will join me in my effort to knock this provision out. Mr. DeWINE addressed the Chair.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Thank you, Mr. President. I say to my colleagues that I will take only 2 minutes. Look, the Senator from Missouri--we know each other. We work together on the Small Business Committee. If we want to talk about being held hostage, we have a judge who is being held hostage. The Senator knows-- he was up here earlier--that there are a lot of discussions going on. And I think the majority leader is confident that this can be worked out very soon. Nobody is trying to stop everything. This all started with a wonderful judge. You would think she is wonderful. She thought she was going through the other night. Everybody had given their word. It was going to be by unanimous consent. And then, all of a sudden, for a variety of different reasons, it did not. It does not do any good for anybody to get angry at anybody any longer. It did happen. We are now trying to work this out. Believe me, this really was the judge that was held hostage. But we are beyond that now. We are working hard on an agreement, and that is going to happen. That is all I would say to my colleague. I think he knows that. Mr. BOND addressed the Chair.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. It is in the form of a question, if my colleagues would be tolerant for just a moment. The first question or comment is, again, I understand what the Senator from Texas has said. I do want to point out that Judge Montgomery does not have anything to do with what is going on in the House of Representatives or anywhere else. She is just back in Minnesota waiting to be confirmed. I say to the majority leader, whom I have worked with in good faith and appreciate all that he is doing, that a long time ago we discussed Judge Montgomery. We were going to do it judge by judge. I hope she just does not get held up in this big puzzle, and we can please go forward with her. The last point I want to make is just to follow up on the minority whip. Since then I talked to the majority leader yesterday about Lodine. I said this was something I would challenge on the floor. But I understand exactly what the majority leader had to say, and I, in no way, shape, or form, believe this should have anything to do with any kind of personal attack or anything like that. I am opposed to that. When we have this discussion and I have a point of order, I will stay far away from that. The majority leader has been someone I have enjoyed knowing and enjoyed working with, and I want him to know that, as somebody who will be on the floor later on in that debate. But could we please--Judge Montgomery is just waiting back in Minnesota for us to move this. Could we please do that for her? I have told her that Senators, Democrats and Republicans, are good people, that we all have a big heart. Could we please move her forward?

Mr. WELLSTONE

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

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. I am prepared. Mrs. HUTCHISON addressed the Chair.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. I will take just 1 minute. I know the minority leader wants to speak on this. Let me just say I heard the word ``controversial'' used. Judge Ann Montgomery has the support of both Senators from Minnesota. She has the broadest possible support in the legal community, the highest possible marks from the ABA. She is imminently qualified. I would be more than pleased for someone to move this. I do not ask for unanimous consent, although I think that is the best way to do it. I would be willing to debate this nominee with anybody. Just to be very clear, as far as the delay, I was not the one that put the hold on Judge Montgomery. I am not the one that has objected to moving forward. Other Senators have. I am just doing what any Senator would do from any State, which is that I am fighting hard for a woman who richly deserves to be Federal district judge. There is no reason in the world why anybody should be trying to stop this. This woman came out of committee back in March. She has been waiting and waiting and waiting, and I have patiently worked through the process. I am absolutely convinced the majority leader is working in good faith, and I look forward to working this out tomorrow. I apologize to my colleague from Missouri, who is a friend whom I respect. I am not the one that has delayed this.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Reserving the right to object, and the majority leader has been working in very good faith. I appreciate it. I just let my colleagues know that this is not my first choice, but month after month after month I have been very patient. The last several weeks I have been very patient. I think the majority leader would be the first person to say I have worked through the process. We have a very gifted judge, Hennepin County Judge Ann Montgomery. I thought there was a clear agreement that she would be cleared last night. That did not happen. It is not my choice that somebody objected. I have heard no substantive reasons given to that objection, and that is why I object to moving forward. I am going to fight very hard for Ann Montgomery because she is an immensely talented, gifted judge, with broad support in Minnesota, broad support in the legal community. What has been going on here is just or fair to her. That is why I object.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, and I do object.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, can we have order in the Chamber?

Mr. WELLSTONE

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

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, while we are waiting, I wish to insert into the Record an op-ed piece today by Frances Fox Piven in the New York Times called ``From Workhouse to Workfare.'' This is a very powerful piece. It concludes with the statement that the ``facts don't seem to matter'' in the debate over this welfare bill. ``We may have to relive the misery and moral disintegration of England in the 19th century to learn what happens when society deserts its most vulnerable members.'' That is the conclusion of this article. I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Congressional Record.

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 that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I am here to speak, but out of deference to Senator Moynihan, who is ranking member of the Finance Committee and, more importantly, who has shown an intellectual and personal public policy commitment, probably unlike anyone in the Senate, I will suggest the absence of a quorum so we can see whether or not Senator Moynihan wants to speak now. If not, I will speak. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I do want to talk about this piece of legislation. I have heard some discussion about doing good. Let me start out with what is a very important framework to me as a Senator from Minnesota. It is a question. Will this legislation, if passed, signed into law by the President, create more poverty and more hunger among children in America? And if the answer to that question is yes, then my vote is no. Mr. President, we were discussing welfare reform several years ago, and we said that we should move from welfare to work, that that would include job training, education training, making sure the jobs were available that single parents--mostly mothers--could support their children on, and a commitment to child care. Just about every single scholar in the United States of America has said that this is what reform is all about. You have to invest some additional resources. Then, in the long run, not only are the mothers and children better off, but we are all better off. That is real welfare reform. Slashing close to $60 billion in low-income assistance is not reform, colleagues. It is punitive, it is harsh, and it is extreme. Mr. President, we have been focusing in this Congress on the budget deficit. I think, today, what we see in the U.S. Senate is a spiritual deficit because, Mr. President, I know some of my colleagues do not want to look at this. They push their gaze away from unpleasant facts and an unpleasant reality. Sometimes people do not want to know what they do not want to know. Mr. President, the evidence is irrefutable and irreducible: This legislation, once enacted into law, will create more poverty and hunger among children in America. That is not reform. Mr. President, we have here about $28 billion of cuts in nutrition assistance. I believe when the President spoke yesterday he was trying to say that does not have anything to do with reform, and he intends to fix that next Congress. But I worry about what will happen now. Mr. President, 70 percent of the citizens that will be affected by these cuts in food nutrition programs are children, 50 percent of the families have incomes of under $6,300 a year. Our incomes are $130,000 a year. Mr. President, there will be a $3 billion cut over the next 6 years in food assistance, nutrition assistance, even for families who pay over 50 percent of their monthly income for housing costs. So now we put families in our country--poor families, poor children--in the situation of ``eat or heat,'' but they do not get both. At the same time, my colleagues keep wanting to cut low-income energy assistance programs. This is goodness? This is goodness? Mr. President, I was involved in the anti-hunger struggles in the South. I saw it in North Carolina, and I remind my colleagues, maybe they want to go back and look at the exposes, look at the Field Foundation report, look at the CBS report, ``Hunger USA.'' Where are the national media? Why are we not seeing documentaries right now about poverty in America? Mr. President, the Food Stamp Program, which we dramatically expanded in the late 1960's and early 1970's, with Richard Nixon, a Republican, leading the way, has been the most effective and important safety-net practice in this country. As a result of expanding that program, we dramatically reduce hunger and malnutrition among children in America. Now we are turning the clock back, and some of my colleagues are calling this reform. Mr. President, how did it get to be reform, to cut by 20 percent food nutrition assistance for a poor, 80-year-old woman? How dare you call it reform. That is not reform. How did it get to be reform to slash nutrition programs that are so important in making sure that children have an adequate diet? How dare you call it reform. That is not reform. How did it get to be reform to essentially eliminate all of the assistance for legal immigrants, people who pay taxes and work? How dare you call that reform. That has not a thing to do with reform. The Urban Institute came out with a report several weeks ago. Isabel Sawhill, one of the very best, said this legislation will impoverish an additional 1.1 million children. We have had these analyses before. The Office of Management and Budget had a similar analysis. So did the Department of Health and Human Services. How dare you call a piece of legislation that will lead to more poverty among children in America reform? Marian Wright Edelman of the Children's Defense Fund is right: To call this piece of legislation reform is like calling catsup a vegetable. Except this time it is more serious, because many more children, many more elderly, many more children with disabilities will be affected. Mr. President, the evidence is really irreducible and irrefutable. Bob Greenstein, who has won the MacArthur Genius Award for his work, crunched the numbers about what it means in personal terms, real terms for the most vulnerable citizens in America, but my colleagues are too worried about polls. They are too worried about the politics of it, and they turn their gaze away from all this. Mr. President, I do not particularly care about words like ``entitlement.'' But I do think as a nation we are a community, and up until the passage of this legislation, if signed into law, we as a nation said, as a community we will make sure there is a floor beneath which no child can fall in America. Now we have eliminated that floor. We are now saying as a Senate that there will no longer be any floor beneath which no child can fall. And you call that reform? Mr. President, we had a proposal out here on the floor of the Senate that said, if you are going to cut people off from work, if you are going to cut people off from welfare, at least require the States to provide vouchers. The CBO tells us we do not have the money for the job training slots, and people will not necessarily find work, and then you will cut the adult off work. So we added an amendment that said, ``For God's sake, at least make sure there are vouchers for Pampers, for health care, for food for the children.'' That amendment was rejected. So we have no requirement that at the very minimum, even if you are going to cut a parent off of welfare, at least make sure the law of the land says that every State from Mississippi to Missouri to Minnesota to California to Georgia, that at least there will be vouchers for Pampers, for food, for medical assistance, and you vote ``no'' and you say there will be no vouchers. And you call that reform? Mr. President, in the Senate, I introduced an amendment, and it was accepted. It said in all too many cases, too many of these women have been victims of domestic violence, they have been battered, and welfare is the only alternative for too many women to a very abusive and dangerous situation at home. So every State will be required to have services for these women and not force people off the rolls if, in fact, there needs to be additional support. It took Monica Seles 2 years to play tennis again after she was attacked. Imagine what it would be like to be beaten up over and over again. That amendment was knocked out in the conference--no national requirement, no protection. Maybe it will be done in the States and maybe it won't. Mr. President, I had a safety valve amendment. It was defeated. Senator Kerry from Massachusetts had another one which was watered down, but important. It was knocked out in conference committee. It said, why don't we at least look at what we have done, and if in fact there is more poverty and hunger, then we will take corrective action in 2 years. That was knocked out in conference committee. You call that reform? Mr. President, let me be crystal clear. You focus on work, you focus on job training, you focus on education, you focus on making sure that families can make a transition from welfare to work, and that is great. Eliminating services for legal immigrants, draconian cuts in food nutrition programs for children and the elderly, deep cuts in assistance for children with disabilities--none of this has anything to do with reform. This is done in the name of deficit reduction. When I had an amendment on the floor that dealt with all of the breaks that go to some of the oil companies, or tobacco companies, or pharmaceutical companies, that was defeated. When we had a budget that called for $12 billion more than the Pentagon wanted and we tried to eliminate that, that was defeated. But now when it comes to poor children in America, who clearly are invisible here in Washington, DC-- at least in the Congress--faceless and voiceless, how generous we are with their suffering. And you dare to call that reform? You dare to say that, in the name of children, when you are passing a piece of legislation that every single study says will increase poverty and hunger among children. Vote for it for political reasons, but you can't get away with calling it reform. It is reverse reform. It is reformatory, it is punitive, it is harsh, it is extreme. It targets the most vulnerable citizens in America--poor children. Mr. President, in this insurance reform bill we are going to be dealing with, late last night someone inserted a 2-year monopoly patent extension for an anti-arthritis drug, a special interest gift to one drug company, because then you don't have the generic drugs. Late last night, someone put this into the insurance reform bill. There you go. There is some welfare for a pharmaceutical company. But they are the heavy hitters. They have the lobbyists. They are well-connected. We do just fine by them. But for these poor children, who very few Members of the Senate even know, we are all too generous with their suffering. Mr. President, I had an amendment that was passed by a 99-to-0 vote that said the Senate shall not take any action that shall create more hunger or homelessness among children. Now we are slashing $28 billion in food nutrition programs with the harshest effect being on children in America. Can my colleagues reconcile that for me? I would love to debate someone on this. I doubt whether there will be debate on it, because the evidence is clear. Mr. President, President Clinton said yesterday that he will sign the bill, and he said that he will work hard, I presume next Congress, to correct what he thinks is wrong. He pointed out that these draconian cuts in food nutrition programs and in assistance to legal immigrants are wrong, they have nothing to do with reform. He is absolutely right. Personally, it is difficult for me to say, well, with the exception of these draconian cuts in food assistance programs for children and the elderly, with the exception of these draconian cuts for children with disabilities, and draconian cuts for legal immigrants, this is a pretty good bill otherwise. I can't make that argument. But I will work with the President because, clearly, this is going to pass, and, quite clearly, corrective action is going to have to be taken next Congress. But, for myself, Mr. President, I am a Senator from the great State of Minnesota. As Senator Hubert Humphrey said, the test case for a society or government is how we treat people in the twilight of their lives--the elderly; how we treat people at the dawn of their lives--the children; and how we treat people in the shadow of their lives--the poor, and those that are struggling with disabilities. We have failed that test miserably with this piece of legislation. Mr. President, I come from a State that I think leads the Nation in its commitment to children and its commitment to fairness and its commitment to opportunity. As a Senator from Minnesota that is up for reelection this year, there can be one zillion attack ads--and there already have been many, and there will be many more--and I will not vote for legislation that impoverishes more children in America. That is not the right thing to do. That is not a Minnesota vote. Mr. President, in my next term as a U.S. Senator from Minnesota, I am going to embark on a poverty tour in our country. I am going to bring television with me, and I am going to bring media with me, and I am going to visit these children. I am going to visit some of these poor, elderly people. I am going to visit these families. I am going to visit these legal immigrants. I am going to have my Nation focus its attention, and I am going to have my colleagues, Republicans and Democrats alike, focus their attention on these vulnerable citizens. And, if in fact we see the harshness, the additional poverty, and the additional malnutrition, which is exactly what is going to happen, I am going to bring all those pictures and all of those voices and all of those faces and all of those children and all of those elderly people back to the floor of the U.S. Senate, and we will correct the terrible mistake we are making in this legislation. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, first of all, I ask unanimous consent that a representative sample of editorials on this subject be printed in the Record.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, that would be fine.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. That is right, for 1 minute. This does not say the Federal Government does not have the responsibility to take the waste. That is not this amendment. The Senator mischaracterizes this amendment. That is a straw-man or straw-person argument. This amendment deals with the whole question of liability.

Mr. WELLSTONE

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