Paul Wellstone

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Will the Senator yield for a question? I missed the first part. There is now a call for a rollcall vote?

Mr. WELLSTONE. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, let me be very clear that we made a modification from the original amendment to deal with some of the problems my colleagues had about expansion. We are doing two things: Lowering the payment limits from $50,000 per year to $30,000 per year, though it can be $30,000 per year over 5 years. This is consistent with the vote we have made on payment limitations. There is no reason for Government subsidies going to the largest of the largest. Second is to prevent producers with an interest in more than one large CAFO to receive multiple EQIP contracts. This is consistent as a reform amendment. Why should conglomerates get payments for multiple CAFOs? Finally, making sure there is a comprehensive management plan which goes to the producers, which is good, sound environmental practice. As I said, this has the support of a lot of farm organizations and many environmental organizations. It is a good reform vote. I hope we will get a majority vote. I yield the floor.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Senator for his cooperation. I am saying that when you put up a facility there has to be a plan of what you are going to do with the waste. That is all I am really saying. If I heard the Senator from Wyoming correctly, he is not objecting. Are we still going to go forward with a recorded vote or not? I will do it either way, but it sounds as if we could move forward.

Mr. WELLSTONE. While falling somewhat short of what I had hoped for in terms of nutrition funding, this legislation nonetheless makes important strides to help ensure that the most vulnerable among us are not left without adequate nutrition in this land of plenty. Refugees and asylees, who enter this country to escape foreign oppression, could receive food stamps for as long as they need them without having to worry about an arbitrary time limit such as the one in current law. Childless unemployed adults could receive six months of food stamps within a twenty-four month period designated by the state. This is still a harsh provision, tougher than the provision that twice passed the Senate in the mid-1990s with bipartisan support. Nonetheless, it would give more people enough time to find new employment before their food stamp eligibility runs out. The legislation also preserves a $25 million fund to help these states provide work slots to persons reaching this time limit. The legislation also helps the very poorest of the poor by increasing the standard deduction and by providing transitional food stamps to persons leaving welfare because they obtained low-paying jobs or because they reached a time limit.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I rise today to pay homage to Hadassah, the Women's Zionist Organization of America, on the occasion of its 90th anniversary. As you may know, Hadassah is the largest women's and the largest Jewish membership organization in the United States. Hadassah's 300,000 volunteers are active throughout the world, including 800 U.S. communities in 48 different States, as well as the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico. Since 1912, Hadassah volunteers have played a lead role in advancing the cause of social justice, particularly in the areas of education and health. One such endeavor, the breast cancer detection and awareness campaign, ``Check It Out,'' has had powerful, positive effects on women nationwide. The success of Hadassah's youth programs, particularly Young Judaea and Youth Aliya, proves that volunteerism can affect change. The organization's commitment to a peaceful future in Israel and Palestine also deserves praise. Hadassah has earned accolades for its work in Israel, where they operate a world-renowned medical complex in Jerusalem, made up of two advanced hospitals, with a clientele of more than 600,000 patients of all races, religions and creeds. In addition, the Hadassah Medical Organization is actively involved in global outreach programs in scores of other countries, particularly those in Africa. These international campaigns focus on public health awareness, particularly AIDS education, as well as on treatment of eye diseases. As the Chairman of the Subcommittee on Near Eastern and South Asian Affairs, I have learned a great deal about the important work of Hadassah. I respect their contributions and appreciate all they have done to advance the legislative agenda of women and Israel. The spirit of founder Henrietta Szold lives on today, through the dedication and commitment of Hadassah's volunteers. I am proud to offer my commendation on 90 years of quality service.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to require telecommunications firms to receive explicit written consent from consumers prior to sharing their customer proprietary network information, or CPNI, with other entities. This is a simple bill that will provide consumers with the privacy protection that they deserve to have and that I believe should already be required under the 1996 Telecommunications Act. The 1996 Communications Act established as law that CPNI is confidential personal information, requiring customer approval before its release or being shared with others. Congress and the American people count on the Federal Communications Commission, FCC, to carry out that mandate and to protect the privacy of American consumers who use the country's telecommunications system. Therefore, I believe it shouldn't really even be necessary to introduce this legislation, clarifying that approval should mean ``express written consent'' or, in other words, an ``opt-in'' approach to protecting privacy. But I share the concern of consumer advocates and 39 State attorneys general that the FCC, which is currently taking comment on the matter, could otherwise adopt an ``opt-out'' approach to privacy as it relates to CPNI. In my view, and in the view of the consumer advocates and the state attorneys general, an opt-out approach cannot adequately protect consumers'' privacy and would not meet Congress's intent in passing the 1996 Communications Act. An opt-out approach would put the unfair burden on consumers to protect their own confidential personal information that is in the possession of large telecommunications companies, protect it from being shared by those companies with other entities. This can be information of the most sensitive kind, including lists of phone numbers dialed and the duration and timing of calls. An opt-out approach presumes consumer consent that such information could be shared unless the customer goes through an unduly burdensome and uncertain process to request that the provider not share it. In recent months in Minnesota, for example, Qwest notified customers that the company would begin to share customer information unless the customers notified Qwest that they did not want it shared. The company notice was often overlooked by customers, and it was difficult to understand for many customers who did try to read it. Furthermore, numerous customers reported problems getting through to the company's 800 number, or in navigating the options for opting out of the information sharing scheme. Due to customer complaints, and to the company's credit, Qwest recently reversed its position and will not share any customer information until the FCC issues a final CPNI rule. Meanwhile, however, Qwest and other telecommunications carriers have been advocating heavily for adoption by the FCC of an ``opt-out'' approach. I am not telling anyone whether they should want their CPNI shared and made available to marketers. That is up to consumers themselves. I do want to leave that choice to consumers. I believe that means that they must have the opportunity to give their express consent on what personal information and to whom it will be shared before such information is shared.

Mr. WELLSTONE

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

Mr. WELLSTONE. Madam President, my understanding is there is an amendment that my colleague from Idaho has introduced, or will introduce--my understanding is he has introduced it--which deals with a ban on packer ownership, an amendment which was passed by this body on December 13. This was a Johnson/Grassley/Wellstone bipartisan amendment. It had the support of the Senator from Wyoming, Mr. Thomas, as well. My understanding is my colleague Senator Harkin will soon do a second-degree amendment to the Craig amendment. I was concerned I may not be present when that happens, so I wanted to speak about this. What the Craig amendment would do is nullify this packer ownership amendment and replace it with a study. The intent of this packer ownership amendment is clear. It restricts the major meatpacking firms from owning livestock in a 14-day period before taking livestock to slaughter. What we are talking about is a a tactic used by some packers. It is really their own form of supply management to reduce competition. This is an amendment intended to increase competition and the bargaining power of the independent producers. This amendment has the support of the Nation's two largest farm and ranch organizations: the National Farmers Union and the Farm Bureau Federation. They have both expressed strong support for a ban on packer ownership of livestock, as have many other agricultural organizations across the country. The meatpacking industry is busily working the Halls of the Congress to kill our amendment because, unfortunately, some of these firms want to give preference to their own livestock so they do not have to pay the farmers and the ranchers a fair price. What they do is they buy when prices are low, and then when prices start to go up for the independent livestock producers, they dump on the market to keep prices down. They are like a cartel. A lot of the independent livestock producers in Minnesota and the country are sick and tired of these conglomerates muscling their way to the dinner table and using their raw economic and political power to push the independent producers out of existence. As a matter of fact, a lot of taxpayers are sick of it as well. That is why this amendment, which puts some limit on payments, passed yesterday. It was a very important reform amendment. Some of these packers have even taken out attack ads against some of us who have supported this amendment. There is a dramatic attack ad by Smithfield in South Dakota--I am listed with Senator Grassley, but it is aimed at Senator Johnson--where they basically say if this amendment stays in, they are not going to do any more investment in South Dakota or hint that they are even going to leave. I do not know whether one calls that blackmail or whitemail or threat of capital strike. I am not sure. The major question surrounding the intent of our amendment concerns the meaning of the word ``control'' and whether the inclusion of that word in our language prohibits forward contracts or contractural marketing arrangements. While all the sponsors of this amendment have made it clear that the word ``control'' in the context of the ownership restriction does not prohibit such arrangements, Senator Harkin's amendment today should leave no doubt. The amendment of the Senator from Iowa makes clear that forward contracts and other marketing arrangements do not give a packer operational control of the production process and makes it crystal clear what control is all about. We are not saying you cannot have contractual arrangements with other producers. We are talking about direct ownership. I will discuss again the ``why'' of this amendment that passed in December. I have been having fun with this debate because it is serious but you have to have a twinkle in your eye. I believe the battleground is to call for more free enterprise in the free enterprise system. I am the conservative here calling for more competition in the food industry; the independent livestock producers want a fair shake. The packers have their own style of supply management. Again, they act as a cartel and jack the independent producers around. They buy when prices are low. When prices go up, they dump on the market to keep prices low. It is simply unacceptable. We have had formal agriculture committee hearings in the State of Minnesota. This has been an issue for a number of years. Usually the processors with all of their power win the debate. Yesterday's vote in the Senate says, when it comes to income support in government payments, there have to be payment limitations. We are tired of it being in such inverse relation to need. That was a reform vote. Country-of-origin labeling was a reform vote. The environmental credits in this bill that Senator Harkin has worked on is a reform vote. A strong energy section in this bill is a reform vote. Rural economic development is a reform vote. Getting the loan rate up, at least somewhat, is a reform vote. And this is a reform vote. I join my colleague, Senator Harkin, who will be introducing the second-degree amendment. I say to all Senators, this is a blatant effort on the part of these big packers, of these big processors, to go after the independent producers. They always think, because they have so much economic power and political power, that they will win these votes. I like my colleague from Idaho. It is my nature to like people. With all due respect, the amendment of the Senator from Idaho does not represent a step forward; it represents a great leap sideways. The independent producers are being squeezed out of existence. These big conglomerates are not interested in a study. They are interested in whether or not we are on their side. As a Senator from Minnesota, I can say with a great deal of good feeling and glee that I am on the side of the independent producers. I am on the side of our family farmers. I am not on the side of these big packers and these big conglomerates. They will not be able to muscle their way to the dinner table and push family farmers out of existence. They will not be able to muscle their way to the floor of the Senate to try to reverse a vote. We are not going to let them do it.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I yield.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I ask my colleague if he will yield for a question. I say to my colleague from Pennsylvania, it won't be a 2-hour colloquy; maybe an hour and 50 minutes but not 2 hours. I say to the Senator from Iowa, I saw this last paragraph, too. It is worth reading again. If the Johnson Amendment becomes law, Smithfield Foods will neither rebuild the Sioux Falls plant, or build a new plant in South Dakota, nor will we make further investment in South Dakota, or for that matter in any other state whose public officials are hostile to our ongoing operations and our industry. Earlier I was lucky enough--I don't consider it the price you pay. I think it is a privilege you earn, to be in small print. It says ``Johnson-Grassley-Wellstone,'' so I get included in this. But this is aimed at Senator Johnson. This is like threatening a capital strike. That is what this is all about. This is absolutely unbelievable. I say to colleagues, now that we are going to have your language--and I want to be included as an original cosponsor as to the second-degree amendment, which makes it crystal clear what control means--we should get an even stronger vote for our amendment. Every Senator ought to stand up to this kind of blatant blackmail or whitemail or threats. The processors and meatpacking companies in Minnesota have not engaged in these kinds of threats. But I tell you what, with all due respect for Smithfield, you are going to get fewer votes, Smithfield, because this is blatant. Everybody knows exactly what you are trying to do. You have a lot of power, you have a lot of muscle, you have been pushing a lot of our independent producers around for a long time, and we are now saying to you that you are not going to be able to do it in the same way. And you know what, you are not going to be able to push U.S. Senators around. We are going to get a strong vote for the second- degree amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that Cheryl Wasserman, who is a fellow in my office, be granted the privilege of the floor during the Senate's consideration of the farm bill.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce an extremely important bill, the Retirement Security Protection Act of 2002. I urge my colleagues to join me in pressing for its swift consideration. As the Enron debacle continues to unfold, it exposes serious gaps in the framework of protections to shield Americans from corporate excess and irresponsibility. Perhaps nowhere is our vulnerability more apparent than in the area of retirement security. As thousands of Enron employees saw much of their life savings vanish, the company's top executives walked off with fortunes for retirement locked in. Enron spent over $1 million to insure that Ken Lay would receive $440,000 in annual retirement income while simultaneously encouraging employees to risk their own retirement security by loading up on excessive amounts of soon-to-be worthless stock. Unfortunately, some of the Enron circumstances are by no means unique. Similar disparities between rank-and-file employee and executive retirement security have become increasingly common in corporate America. Similarly disastrous outcomes for employees' retirement security have occurred at other companies, such as Lucent and Polaroid. We must take steps now to address these fundamental inequities. Nearly eight decades ago, the Federal Government established a compact with all Americans to provide a basic level of security in their retirement years. Social security became and still is the essential cornerstone of the American promise of retirement security. We must do everything in our power to protect the dignity of social security for older Americans. In the 1970s, we recognized the need to protect what was then becoming a second lynchpin of retirement security: employer-provided pension plans, or so-called ``defined benefit'' plans. In ERISA, the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, we took steps to protect the security of such plans. We created a system for insuring them against loss, and we put into place portfolio diversification rules to help assure their solvency. No more than 10 percent of assets in a defined benefit plan, that is, in a traditional pension plan, may be held in the employer's company stock. The Federal Government has not thus far taken steps to provide similar protections with respect to other retirement savings accounts, for example, 401(k) plans. This is because, until relatively recently, such plans were much fewer in number, and they had largely been viewed as a supplement to workers' social security and defined benefit plans. The world of retirement security has changed, however, and it is still changing. Now, traditional defined benefit, or pension, plans have essentially given way to defined contribution plans, such as 401(k)s, as the primary retirement security vehicle after social security. These new plans have been popular with mobile younger workers, and a boon to employers who have enjoyed substantial cash and administrative savings by switching out of their traditional pension plans and into these new ones. In 1984, there were 30 million defined benefit participants and 7.5 million participants in 401(k) plans. By 2001, this relationship was reversed, with just 20 million defined benefit participants and an estimated 42 million 401(k) participants. In a 1998 survey, 57 percent of U.S. households said that the only pension plan available to them was a 401(k) plan. That percentage undoubtedly has increased since then. Meanwhile, measures to ensure the integrity of these 401(k) plans have not kept pace with their proliferation and importance. Such plans clearly carry considerable risks for the retirement security of millions of Americans, as the Enron and other situations have demonstrated. Unfortunately, the potential for additional disasters remains high. Recent reports indicate some 20 major corporations at which the 401(k) plan is more than 60 percent invested in company stock. When the 401(k) portfolios of employees are overinvested in their company's stock and that company's stock crashes, the individual losses suffered by workers and retirees who see their entire retirement savings obliterated are only a piece of the story. The human and capital costs to society of such failures are multiplied many times over. Family members who themselves may be struggling will find that they are forced to pitch in to help their loved ones. Retirees will be forced to spend many additional years in the workplace to recover even a portion of what they lost. Individuals without family or savings to see them through will turn to government for support. It's important to remember that these retirement plans come with a heavy price tag for taxpayers. Under current law, pension plans that meet certain standards net considerable tax advantages for both the companies that sponsor them and the individuals who participate in them. These provisions cost the government an estimated $100 billion per year in foregone revenue. In my view, that is money well invested. But we do our best to ensure that we are reaching our actual policy goal. The primary policy rationale for tax favored treatment of these plans today is that they promote retirement security for millions of Americans. There is hardly a more important policy goal. But while traditional pension plans are carefully regulated to manage the level of risk involved while promoting that goal, 401(k) and similar plans currently offer no such protections. Our support for 401(k)s is not matched by adequate disclosure, portfolio diversification and accountability measures. The huge risks of individual overexposure to company stock have been demonstrated in no uncertain terms, yet the danger continues with no appropriate government response, despite the major public investment. That is the reason that I am introducing the Retirement Security Protection Act of 2002. The legislation is designed to maximize the flexibility and benefits that retirement savings plans provide for both employers and employees, while minimizing the risk of future Enrons. First, my proposal seeks to improve the flow of information between plan sponsors and participants, particularly for those plans with significant employer stock holdings. Second, I am proposing that employers take steps to safeguard their employees' retirement by providing them and the government with an estimate of the extent to which their retirement is dependent on employer stock and property. Employers will be required to reduce that level of dependency across all retirement plans to 20 percent by the year 2008. Companies that sufficiently limit the amount of employer stock in their plans as a whole are deemed to meet the 20 percent standard. While my plan uses the same, 20-percent diversification target as other proposals, it also encourages and rewards employers who sponsor traditional pension plans by allowing them to maintain higher levels of company stock in their defined contribution 401(k) plans. It also seeks to spur innovation by permitting employers to obtain a waiver from the Department of Labor for alternative approaches that manage the risk associated with defined contribution plans. Finally, I propose broadening the liability for plan losses resulting from illegal behavior and improving the remedies available to those who have been hurt by such behavior. Our compact with American working families is meant to assure them the kind of security in their retirement years they have worked so hard to achieve. I urge my colleagues to join me in this urgent quest. I ask unanimous consent that a summary of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce an extremely important bill, the Retirement Security Protection Act of 2002. I urge my colleagues to join me in pressing for its swift consideration. As the Enron debacle continues to unfold, it exposes serious gaps in the framework of protections to shield Americans from corporate excess and irresponsibility. Perhaps nowhere is our vulnerability more apparent than in the area of retirement security. As thousands of Enron employees saw much of their life savings vanish, the company's top executives walked off with fortunes for retirement locked in. Enron spent over $1 million to insure that Ken Lay would receive $440,000 in annual retirement income while simultaneously encouraging employees to risk their own retirement security by loading up on excessive amounts of soon-to-be worthless stock. Unfortunately, some of the Enron circumstances are by no means unique. Similar disparities between rank-and-file employee and executive retirement security have become increasingly common in corporate America. Similarly disastrous outcomes for employees' retirement security have occurred at other companies, such as Lucent and Polaroid. We must take steps now to address these fundamental inequities. Nearly eight decades ago, the Federal Government established a compact with all Americans to provide a basic level of security in their retirement years. Social security became and still is the essential cornerstone of the American promise of retirement security. We must do everything in our power to protect the dignity of social security for older Americans. In the 1970s, we recognized the need to protect what was then becoming a second lynchpin of retirement security: employer-provided pension plans, or so-called ``defined benefit'' plans. In ERISA, the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, we took steps to protect the security of such plans. We created a system for insuring them against loss, and we put into place portfolio diversification rules to help assure their solvency. No more than 10 percent of assets in a defined benefit plan, that is, in a traditional pension plan, may be held in the employer's company stock. The Federal Government has not thus far taken steps to provide similar protections with respect to other retirement savings accounts, for example, 401(k) plans. This is because, until relatively recently, such plans were much fewer in number, and they had largely been viewed as a supplement to workers' social security and defined benefit plans. The world of retirement security has changed, however, and it is still changing. Now, traditional defined benefit, or pension, plans have essentially given way to defined contribution plans, such as 401(k)s, as the primary retirement security vehicle after social security. These new plans have been popular with mobile younger workers, and a boon to employers who have enjoyed substantial cash and administrative savings by switching out of their traditional pension plans and into these new ones. In 1984, there were 30 million defined benefit participants and 7.5 million participants in 401(k) plans. By 2001, this relationship was reversed, with just 20 million defined benefit participants and an estimated 42 million 401(k) participants. In a 1998 survey, 57 percent of U.S. households said that the only pension plan available to them was a 401(k) plan. That percentage undoubtedly has increased since then. Meanwhile, measures to ensure the integrity of these 401(k) plans have not kept pace with their proliferation and importance. Such plans clearly carry considerable risks for the retirement security of millions of Americans, as the Enron and other situations have demonstrated. Unfortunately, the potential for additional disasters remains high. Recent reports indicate some 20 major corporations at which the 401(k) plan is more than 60 percent invested in company stock. When the 401(k) portfolios of employees are overinvested in their company's stock and that company's stock crashes, the individual losses suffered by workers and retirees who see their entire retirement savings obliterated are only a piece of the story. The human and capital costs to society of such failures are multiplied many times over. Family members who themselves may be struggling will find that they are forced to pitch in to help their loved ones. Retirees will be forced to spend many additional years in the workplace to recover even a portion of what they lost. Individuals without family or savings to see them through will turn to government for support. It's important to remember that these retirement plans come with a heavy price tag for taxpayers. Under current law, pension plans that meet certain standards net considerable tax advantages for both the companies that sponsor them and the individuals who participate in them. These provisions cost the government an estimated $100 billion per year in foregone revenue. In my view, that is money well invested. But we do our best to ensure that we are reaching our actual policy goal. The primary policy rationale for tax favored treatment of these plans today is that they promote retirement security for millions of Americans. There is hardly a more important policy goal. But while traditional pension plans are carefully regulated to manage the level of risk involved while promoting that goal, 401(k) and similar plans currently offer no such protections. Our support for 401(k)s is not matched by adequate disclosure, portfolio diversification and accountability measures. The huge risks of individual overexposure to company stock have been demonstrated in no uncertain terms, yet the danger continues with no appropriate government response, despite the major public investment. That is the reason that I am introducing the Retirement Security Protection Act of 2002. The legislation is designed to maximize the flexibility and benefits that retirement savings plans provide for both employers and employees, while minimizing the risk of future Enrons. First, my proposal seeks to improve the flow of information between plan sponsors and participants, particularly for those plans with significant employer stock holdings. Second, I am proposing that employers take steps to safeguard their employees' retirement by providing them and the government with an estimate of the extent to which their retirement is dependent on employer stock and property. Employers will be required to reduce that level of dependency across all retirement plans to 20 percent by the year 2008. Companies that sufficiently limit the amount of employer stock in their plans as a whole are deemed to meet the 20 percent standard. While my plan uses the same, 20-percent diversification target as other proposals, it also encourages and rewards employers who sponsor traditional pension plans by allowing them to maintain higher levels of company stock in their defined contribution 401(k) plans. It also seeks to spur innovation by permitting employers to obtain a waiver from the Department of Labor for alternative approaches that manage the risk associated with defined contribution plans. Finally, I propose broadening the liability for plan losses resulting from illegal behavior and improving the remedies available to those who have been hurt by such behavior. Our compact with American working families is meant to assure them the kind of security in their retirement years they have worked so hard to achieve. I urge my colleagues to join me in this urgent quest. I ask unanimous consent that a summary of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. WELLSTONE

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

Mr. WELLSTONE. Madam President, I call up my amendment No. 2602.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Madam President and colleagues, this is a simple reform amendment. We have done a lot of good in the farm bill--I thank the chairman, Senator Harkin--which I really think represents a reform measure. The energy section of the bill is very important, economic development, and the Conservation Security Act, and the list goes on. I think the amendment Senator Johnson offered--I was proud to offer it with him--on captive supply is extremely important. The country-of- origin label is really important. Later in this debate, we will consider a payment limitation amendment that I am in favor of which would stop subsidizing the megafarms that have driven independent producers out of business. Part of the problem right now in the food industry is a few conglomerates have muscled their way to the dinner table exercising their raw economic and political power over independent producers, over taxpayers, and over consumers. This debate has made me a true conservative. I am interested in putting more free enterprise into the free enterprise system. I want more competition in the food industry and more competition in agriculture. If you support a payment limitation, you should certainly be in support of this amendment. This amendment is about stopping the flow of benefits to these large livestock conglomerates that over the years have been squeezing out the independent producers and that have also all too often represented an assault on the environment. The amendment is simple. It says we in the Congress should and will work to help alleviate the environmental and public health threat posed by existing large-scale animal factories. However, Congress should not be subsidizing the expansion of these large animal confinement operations. My colleagues should know that this amendment has broad support from both the farm and environmental community with groups such as the National Farmers Union, Defenders of Wildlife, Environmental Defense, Environmental Working Group, the Humane Society, the National Wildlife Federation, National Resources Defense Council, and the Sustainable Ag Coalition. Problem: Current law limits payments under the Environmental Quality Incentives Program--we call it EQIP--to small- and medium-sized operations. Any operation with over 1,000 animal units is not now eligible for EQIP farms. Again, any operation with over 1,000 animal units is not now eligible for EQIP funds. For colleagues who are not from agricultural States, what does 1,000 animal units mean? It means 1,143 cattle, 714 dairy cows, 5,400 hogs, 454,545 boilers, and 66,667 turkeys. Unfortunately, the farm bill of the House of Representatives removes the 1,000 animal unit cap, opening millions of dollars to factory farms for managing their livestock waste. The House bill also raises the current payment limitation to $50,000 a year. The Senate Agriculture Committee's farm bill also eliminates the 1,000 animal unit cap and raises current payment limits to $50,000 per year. Over the last decade, there is little doubt and little debate that we have seen these large-scale animal factories proliferate across the Nation. These big operations have grown with little regard for environmental damage and public health threats rising from the huge amounts of animal waste generated by these operations. Many rural communities have seen drinking water supplies and recreational waters degraded. In some cases, neighboring property owners, including those who have lived in their communities for generations, have been driven from their homes as a result of the animal waste. Farmers and ranchers have joined with others in bringing legal action against these factories for the unbearable stench from millions of gallons of liquid animal feces and urine or tons of poultry waste for the degradation of surface and ground water. This is an environmental amendment, but it is more than that. Additionally, the expansion of these factory farms has, in large part, led to the disruption of family farms. Across America you see this concentration of livestock production into fewer and larger industrial operations taking over, driving out the small businesses. I am saying that these large operations can right now get technical assistance. They can receive EQIP money with no problem whatsoever. But what I am saying is they want to expand. Later in the Chamber we are going to be talking about this again. If they want to expand, they will be receiving more Government money. The Government ought not be in the business of promoting this expansion by giving money to these large conglomerates which quite often are destructive of the environment and destructive of what is good for consumers and are driving independent producers out of business. Again, Senators, I will repeat what I said earlier. There is going to be a payment limitation amendment on the floor. Anyone who is for that certainly ought to be supportive of this amendment. It is very simple. My amendment is simple. It says new or expanding large-scale animal factories shall not be eligible to receive cost- share funds under the EQIP program for animal waste structures. Existing large animal operations would continue to be eligible. That is a very important point for EQIP assistance. Let me be crystal clear about that. Let me also say that there has been language added in consultation with both the majority and the minority committee staff to my amendment to clarify the point that adoption of new technologies does not, absent expansion of capacity, trigger new or expanding provisions. You can always add technology. It is not a problem. We are not talking about new technology. We are talking about the actual expansion of these operations. Another point: What you have going on with these CAFOs is some of these big conglomerates don't own just one but there is multiple ownership. What I am simply saying is to let us do something but let us do something for the family farmers. Let us not oversubsidize corporate operations that own multiple CAFOs around the country. Some of the biggest hog producers in the United States are these large corporations that own 10, 15, or 20 CAFOs. My amendment says if you own more than one CAFO, you don't get any taxpayer subsidy. I am sick and tired of this taxpayer subsidy in inverse relationship to need in agriculture. By the way, so are consumers, so are taxpayers, and so are the citizens we represent. Finally, this amendment also disqualifies funds for construction of new livestock waste facilities located in a 100-year floodplain. That is a no-brainer. I don't I think even need to explain it. But I do want to point out that this revised amendment would allow livestock operations to expand up to 1,000 animal units, even if they are in a 100-year floodplain, but would retain the restriction on establishing new facilities in the floodplain. Colleagues, I have already made it clear that the payment goes not from 10 to 50 but 10 to 30. So we increase the payment. I have also made the case that for those who say we ought to be targeting the assistance, we ought not to have this largess going out to the largest conglomerates, we ought not be using taxpayer money for subsidizing environmental degradation, we ought to be getting this to the independent producers, this amendment is a dream for you. If we do not pass this amendment, you are going to have editorials, and I am sure there will be a Web site somewhere that is going to track these CAFO payments and reveal just how these integrators and corporations are receiving them. Frankly, the reason for that is Congress just gave it away. This is a reform amendment. I urge my colleagues not to go down this road again. I urge my colleagues to retain some degree of reasonableness on the payment limit issue. For those who support reform on the crop side, we should support this measure. If we don't pass this amendment, we will see the same abuses in the EQIP program as we have seen under the commodity programs with all of the money going to the very biggest of the operators. Let us make sure that the small and midsize producers are the ones that get the help. Let's make sure they have access to environmental quality incentive payments. Let's not open the floodgates wide to take care of the full costs of any operation no matter how large it is and no matter its environmental degradation. I simply say the limits in my amendment are triple the size in current law and nearly 10 times larger than the current average payments. It is reasonable. I urge your support. This is a reform amendment for agriculture. It should be adopted. I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Madam President, absolutely. I am very proud to have the support of the chairman.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Might I inquire, Mr. President, how much time remains?

Mr. WELLSTONE. I ask the Senator from Illinois if he has 5 minutes.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I am honored to be a cosponsor of the Durbin amendment which makes legal immigrants who have lived in this country 5 years eligible for food stamps. My colleague from Indiana, Senator Lugar, has been a strong advocate as well, and a number of Senators voted for Senator Lugar's amendments which work to improve the nutrition programs. First a disclaimer. On this whole question of illegal immigrants, we are all products of our personal experience. I remember during the debate on the welfare bill in 1996, one of the things I said was that to vote for the bill would be to me like cutting off my hand because I am a son of immigrants. I am first-generation American. My father fled persecution from Ukraine and Russia. The Senator from Illinois mentioned the former Speaker saying we went too far, and I felt that way. I had a number of objections; I never understood what we were doing. I thought it was too harsh, too punitive. Then in 1998, Congress restored some of the benefits to categories of immigrants. It was children, elderly, and disabled, but only if they were here prior to 1996. The Food Stamp Program is a critical safety net program and, by the way, an astounding success. This is a program that has made a huge difference. One of the problems is, even if the children are eligible and the parent or parents are not eligible, it does not work. Quite frankly, it does not work. One of the reasons we have seen this huge decline, which should concern us--since the bill passed, there has been maybe a 25- to 35-percent decline in food stamp participation--is because of these cuts. Even when the children are supposed to be helped, if the parents are not eligible, they do not know about it, they do not know where to go, and they are not able to help their kids. This amendment is about helping a lot of people. Altogether, 360,000 legal immigrants would be helped--men, women, some elderly, some middle aged, some children. It is the right thing to do. It corrects a huge injustice. I also give credit to the White House for taking a strong lead on this. I give credit to my colleagues, Senator Durbin and Senator Lugar, and I know Senator Harkin supports this effort. There is bipartisan, strong support. I wish to say one other thing which is a little bit different, and it is not inconsistent with what I just said but is interesting to me. This is a social justice amendment. I thank Senator Durbin for it. It is the right thing to do. It is extremely important to get this assistance to families who need this assistance. The other thing that has happened, as opposed to 1996--and I think of Minnesota--is in a way we have new politics in Minnesota and new politics in the country. The immigrant populations--my mother, father, and grandparents did this as well--are finding a voice. They are becoming active in their communities. They are becoming their own leaders. They are speaking for themselves. They are becoming a political force, and there is much more recognition of who they are, what their needs are, and how we can support them. There are so many activities going on in the country right now that are so important and positive for these immigrant communities. Unfortunately, in my opinion, these cuts were not the only harsh feature of the welfare bill, but this was one of them. This amendment improves on the Agriculture Committee's work. That work in the committee vastly improved on the mistakes we made in 1996. This is a hugely important amendment, and I am very proud to support it.

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

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, if the other side wants to yield back time, I will. I thank the Senator from Indiana for his intellectual integrity. The argument he made, if I understood--and I do not want to at all misconstrue his point--was that he will not oppose this amendment because that would be inconsistent with his very strong focus on payment limitation. I am thrilled because I very much want to pass this amendment. I think it is the right thing to do. If the other side wants to yield back its time, I will as well. We can move forward.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Madam President, could I have 30 seconds?

Mr. WELLSTONE. Reserving the right to object, Madam President, I heard my colleague from Pennsylvania speak; I heard my colleague from Texas speak. My colleague from Pennsylvania was talking about the problem being this or that and we need to make sure people are able to go back to work. Obviously, political truth can be elusive and there can be different definitions of what we need to do. Most of the people I have talked to in coffee shops in Minnesota cannot figure out how $1 billion for this multinational and $1 billion for that multinational and $13 billion of tax breaks helps them. But that is almost beside the point. The real problem is this. We can put aside all of our differences, because we have different views about what needs to be done, and we can say: Let's help people right now. Right now. No more rhetoric. No more speeches. People are flat on their backs, through no fault of their own. Can we not just at least have a straight extension of unemployment insurance? That is all this vote is on now. The majority leader is asking for unanimous consent for that alone. That is it. Let's end the speeches and end the rhetoric and just support him.