Paul Wellstone

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I think every Senator who came to the floor has thanked both Senator Kassebaum and Senator Kennedy for their fine work. I wish to join in that. I also say to the Senator from Kansas, who is chair of the Labor and Human Resources Committee, that along with everyone else, I will miss her. I think she has been a great Senator for Kansas and for the benefit the country. I mean that sincerely. Mr. President, I think this is a very important piece of legislation for a number of different reasons. I would like to start out talking about that. I am going to be relatively brief, I say to other colleagues, who may want to come down to the floor for opening statements. I think this is important because, first of all, we will not be able to have any kind of regulation if we do not do it at the Federal level because of ERISA exemption--in other words, preemption. In other words, so many citizens in our States are insured by self-insured plans, and really it is impossible for States--and Minnesota has run into this--to pass reforms that, in fact, will help people and cover everyone because self-insured plans are exempt from that coverage. We ran into this the other day when we marked up an important piece of legislation that I hope will come to the floor, where we said, look, you really do not want to have a family be put in the situation where a mother with a newborn is told, after 24 hours, regardless of circumstances, ``You are out.'' I mean, that is something that people in the country do not think is fair. But the fact of the matter is that even though my State of Minnesota has passed such a piece of legislation, saying, no, that is not fair, there has to be a mother and a doctor and the family in consultation making decisions about what is good for that mother, about 40 percent of the citizens in Minnesota would not be covered because they are in a self-insured plan. This is an extremely important piece of legislation. I hope it is not so weighted down with killer amendments that it does not pass. This is a bipartisan effort, and I think we ought to take this step for one reason more than any other; it is just a matter of elementary fairness. I have not seen polls on this, but I think the Senator from Kansas and the Senator from Massachusetts, and all the rest of us that are cosponsors, would go forward regardless, but I just bet that 99 percent of the country would agree with the proposition that if you have paid your premium on time, just because you now have a bout with breast cancer, or some other kind of illness, it would be outrageous to all of a sudden find yourself without coverage, or you should leave one job and go to another job and not be able to obtain coverage. Most all Americans just find that to be an outrageous proposition. My wife, Sheila, has been my teacher when it comes to domestic violence issues. And with the support of both the Senators from Kansas and Massachusetts in markup, we have a provision in here that we think is important dealing with issues of family violence. I wish these issues were not out there. But we want to make sure battered women are not battered again. If a woman is beaten up and comes to a hospital with her children and reports that, which is what she should do, and which is the first step in being able to leave a very dangerous home--and, unfortunately, homes are not always the safest places in the world--she would not find herself without coverage for that condition. So this is really a piece of legislation that is a matter of basic fairness. I know GAO has estimated that some 25 million Americans could benefit. I also want to make the point that most of the uninsured in our country are uninsured because they cannot afford coverage, not because they are denied coverage. So, in other words, we have a piece of legislation that deals with accessibility and with portability. For those of you listening to the debate, that means you can go from one job to another and not lose your coverage or be locked out because of a preexisting condition. We are not still dealing with affordability. In Minnesota, there are 400,000 Minnesotans without insurance coverage, and 91,000 of them are children. In the main, that is not because of preexisting conditions, it is because the families cannot afford the coverage. Nationwide, the uninsured now number 40 million people. I hope that we will get to the point, again, in this Congress when, in fact, we make sure that every citizen in our country has at least as good a health care coverage as we have as Senators and Representatives. This piece of legislation does not do all that, but it is an important step forward. One other concern I have, Mr. President--and I just want to make this point--you cannot do everything in one piece of legislation. I am out here to support it. I worry a little bit that what might happen is that the insurance companies might say, ``OK, when you shift from job to job, or you move from one job and now you want to set up your own small business, or whatever, we will not deny you coverage because of a preexisting condition, but we will raise your premium to $8,800 a year or $9,000 a year,'' in which case, my fear is that it will become the functional equivalent of preexisting condition discrimination. Let us hope we have the cooperation of the insurance industry. But I just flag that as a potential problem. Last point, Mr. President. I have been doing a lot of work with my colleague from New Mexico, Senator Domenici. A couple of years ago, we started a working group on mental health. Both of us, and other Senators, feel very strongly about this issue. We are working on an amendment that I think is real important. It is an amendment that would provide equitable health care coverage for mental illness and substance abuse services. In other words, what we want to make sure of is that we, once and for all, put a stop to the discrimination that all too often takes place in the health care field. We are simply talking about parity--parity in coverage for physical and mental health and substance abuse services, and not different co-pay requirements, not arbitrary caps on visits with physicians or other health care providers. I have to say that I believe this amendment, which we have worked very hard on, is an extremely important amendment. I believe that Senators, regardless of political party--Senator Domenici and I certainly do not agree on all issues, but we have been immersed in this issue for several years now. We have seen all of the ways in which people, who are struggling with these health care problems, fall between the cracks. We have seen the discrimination. And this amendment, which will really focus on the importance of parity, which will make sure there is no discrimination in this area, I think, is extremely important. I will have data to bring to the floor. I will talk about some of the insurance plans right now that do not discriminate and will talk about why this part is so important. I will talk about the differences it can make for women and men being able to work, to live lives of dignity, and to contribute to the community. But I do look forward at some point in time as we move along with this piece of legislation to bringing this amendment to the floor with my colleague, Senator Domenici. Mr. President, I do not know that there has been another Senator who has been a stronger voice in this area for those citizens who are struggling with mental illness. The same thing can be said for his wife Nancy. For Sheila and I, this has emerged as a professional and a personal friendship. I look forward to being able to proudly bring this amendment out to the floor with my colleague and good friend, Senator Domenici, and I hope in the spirit of what I think is bipartisanship that we will be able to get good, strong support. I yield the floor.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Is it the Senators' understanding that this language that we have accepted from the House bill ensures that women covered in an employment-based health plan, will not be discriminated against because of a medical condition caused by domestic violence, because of a history of domestic violence, or because of their status as a victim of domestic violence?

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, for the past 2 weeks I have tried to come to the floor every day, whenever my colleagues would generously allow me a few minutes, to announce the realization of another component of our initiative to prevent violence against women, which the Senator from Utah has been a very, very strong leader in, the national domestic violence hotline. The hotline, which officially opened on February 24, signifies the realization of the key provision of the Violence Against Women Act, passed by the Congress as part of the 1994 crime bill. The toll free number--I have tried to announce this on the floor over the last several weeks--is 1-800-799-SAFE. This will provide immediate crisis assistance and counseling and local shelter referrals to women across the country, 24 hours a day. There is also a TDD number for the hearing impaired, and that number is 1-800-787-3224. Today, on the last day of the 2-week period in which I promised to highlight the hotline, I want to take the opportunity to stress how much work still has to be done to fight domestic abuse in our country. On Tuesday of this week, the chief prosecutor in Alexandria, VA, John Kloch, called for tougher strategies against domestic violence in response to a murder of a local schoolteacher, Karen Mitsoff, who was killed early Monday of this week by an ex-boyfriend who had been stalking her. Miss Mitsoff's former boyfriend, Mr. Senet, reportedly broke into her apartment on March 10 and threatened to kill her and himself. Senet was charged with burglary and then released on a $2,500 bond in a routine hearing. This past Monday, 1 week after his arrest, he apparently broke into Miss Mitsoff's apartment and fatally shot her before killing himself. Commonwealth Attorney Kloch was quoted as saying: This case shows that there are holes in the system. Somehow we failed to stop this. This case clearly illustrates that in many instances, potential threats to women are not addressed with enough urgency. Let me explain just how urgent these threats to the safety of women and children are. Every 12 seconds, a woman is beaten by a husband, boyfriend, or partner in the United States of America--every 12 seconds; Over 4,000 women are killed every year by their abuser; Every 6 minutes in our country, a woman is forcibly raped; Severe repeated violence occurs in 1 out of every 14 marriages, with an average of 35 incidents before it is reported; Roughly 1 million women are victims of domestic violence each year, and battering may be the most common cause of injury to women, more common than auto accidents, muggings, or rapes by a stranger. According to the FBI, Mr. President, one out of every two women in America will be beaten at least once in the course of an intimate relationship. Let me repeat that. According to the FBI, one out of every two women in America will be beaten at least once in the course of an intimate relationship. It is estimated that the new hotline, that we have shown and brought out to the floor of the Senate as often as we could over the last 2 weeks, will receive close to 10,000 calls a day. The first day I came to the floor to talk about the hotline, I shared a story told to me by my wife, Sheila, while she was speaking in southern Minnesota 2 days before the hotline opened. I would like to tell the story again of a courageous woman in danger whose story illustrates how crucial the existence of a national domestic violence hotline will be in saving the lives of women and children in danger. This woman had been living in New York with her abusive husband and a 5-month-old child. Her husband had moved to New York following their marriage, and he kept his wife and child very isolated there. The husband was very controlling and made it impossible for his wife to socialize, to make friends, or have a job. He checked on her all the time to make sure that she was at home with her baby. In addition to beating her routinely and savagely, he took out a life insurance policy on her, so she lived in constant fear of being killed. This woman told my wife, Sheila, that every time she opened the apartment door, she was sure someone would be on the other side with a shotgun. Her husband had a one-time, out-of-town business deal. He left in the afternoon and planned on returning the following morning. After he left, she decided that it was her only chance to get away. Panicked and pressed for time, she called a local hotline number but found it was disconnected. She was devastated. She called the Legal Aid Society in New York City and was initially told that they could not help her. Out of sheer desperation, she persisted with Legal Aid and was finally given a local agency phone number. Calling the local agency, the woman informed them she wanted to return to Minnesota. They were able to access a computer and put her in touch with a battered woman's shelter in Minnesota in her hometown. She and her baby were on a plane the next morning before her husband got home. Mr. President, this woman was lucky; she was able to obtain the information she needed. But how much better it would be if that hotline had been up and running to give her the information immediately. Unfortunately, some women might not have the whole day to track down information. I think this shows how crucial a national network, like the hotline, will be for keeping women and children safe, literally saving their lives. So today, I ask everyone listening to honor the memory of Karen Mitshoff of Alexandria, VA, as well as all the other women who lose their lives every year at the hands of a husband or a boyfriend or a partner. I also ask you to honor all of the women who have been hurt at the hands of someone with whom they have had an intimate relationship. Chances are you already know one of those women --a coworker, a sister, a mother, a daughter, or a friend. I commend innovations like the national domestic violence hotline. I want to support more creative solutions to stopping this family violence. I want all of us to do that, Democrats and Republicans alike. But most important, today I want to remember Karen Mitshoff who lost her life on Monday, and remind everyone that these efforts to stop this violence in our homes must be ongoing. Mr. President, once again, at the end of this 2-week period, I want to one more time talk about the hotline number. The toll free number of the national domestic violence hotline is 1-800-799-SAFE and 1-800-787- 3224 for the hearing impaired. Everyone has the right to be safe in their own home. Share the number today, those of you who are watching, and maybe you will help someone make themselves safe. I yield the floor. Mr. HATCH addressed the Chair.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, my understanding, I say to my colleagues, is that I have 10 minutes in morning business. I will not exceed that. I will be very brief.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, this minimum wage increase is a very simple and straightforward proposition. Minimum wage right now is $4.25 an hour. You can work 52 weeks a year, 40 hours a week and you still do not make poverty wages. This is important for working families in Minnesota and across the country--almost 200,000 workers in my State-- much less their children. We are talking about a 90-cent increase over 2 years--90 cents over 2 years--to try and respond to the concerns and circumstances of working families in the United States of America, working families in Minnesota. Let me put it another way. The U.S. Senate a few years ago voted itself 1 year a $30,000 increase in salary. That is almost four times the total yearly income of what minimum wage workers make right now in our country. The U.S. Senate voted itself a $30,000 increase in 1 year, which is almost four times the total annual salary of a minimum wage worker and his or her family in this country, and we cannot raise the minimum wage for working people? I do not consider this to be partisan strategy. I do not consider this to be a game. I do not consider this to be tactics. People in the United States of America make it a plea that we respond to the issues that they care about; that we respond to fundamental economic justice questions. That a worker in our country should be able to see his or her wage raised from $4.25 an hour to $5.15 an hour over 2 years is a matter of fundamental economic justice. It is what I call a Minnesota economic justice issue, and I urge my colleagues to vote for cloture.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to call off the quorum call for 5 minutes to speak as in morning business.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, today in the Washington Post, and yesterday in the Congress Daily, there were some articles suggesting that Senator McConnell, Chair of the Senate Ethics Committee, was talking about a blanket exemption on the gift ban--and there may be changes to this, and I hope so--for the upcoming political conventions in San Diego and in Chicago. Mr. President, I want to speak very briefly--and I suspect that I speak on behalf of other colleagues, Senator McCain from Arizona, Senator Feingold from Wisconsin, Senator Lautenberg, Senator Levin-- after more than 2\1/2\ years of negotiations and several hard-fought battles, just as the ink is drying, for a major change like this to be proposed, I think would be a serious breach of faith with the people in our country. Mr. President, a friend and former Senator, Eugene McCarthy, who, by the way, will be 80 this weekend, has joked with me about being a ``Calvinist'' on congressional gift rules, but the reason many of us Senators worked very hard on this reform is that we want people to have more confidence and more trust and more faith in the political process. I just want to say that I really think if there is any kind of blanket exemption here, it would be a terrible mistake. I can see the headlines now: ``Members of Congress Take a Holiday from New Ethics Rule;'' or ``Pressed By Special Interests, Members Backslide to Provide Access;'' or another headline, ``Safe Harbor From Ethics Rules Members Let Their Hair Down at the Conventions.'' Mr. President, I just want to make it clear to colleagues that we would be making a terrible mistake. It is one thing if there are specific issues that have to be resolved, specific problems where maybe there could be minor clarifications. I say just maybe because I think this gift ban legislation is very reasonable. But, quite frankly, people do not want to see us go into these conventions and having special interests pay for our hotels or having them pay for various kinds of outings or having them pay for fancy dinners. It is just simply out of the question, Mr. President. We have a $50 limit on a gift. You can take one up to $50. I say if somebody is thinking about eating more than $50 worth of shrimp at a gathering, this is becoming more a health care issue, not an issue of gift reform. I do not mean to be just talking about this with a twinkle in my eye, but I want to say to colleagues, I do not know what was intended by these comments, but those who worked very hard on this certainly would be out on the floor. If there was any broad or blanket exemption, we would oppose it with all our might. And, more importantly, people in this country would not stand for it. Mr. President, let me just say one more time: The ink is barely dried on these new gift rules, and some are now proposing to relax them. All of a sudden we hear about possible exemptions from the gift rules while Members are at the conventions. For Democrats and Republicans alike-- let me be bipartisan--it would be a huge mistake to go back on the very reform law that we passed a few months ago. We must not do it. There should not be any broad exemptions for these political conventions. We ought to live up to the law of the land that we passed. We ought to live up to this reform. We all ought to go by very high standards. I think people want us to. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Ten minutes.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I thought I had time from the minority leader to speak against the bill.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I wish to let the Senator know I am speaking against the bill.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I would yield myself 10 minutes from the minority leader's time to speak against the bill.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I am pleased that we finally have a farm bill which will pass and will be signed by the President. The bill is long overdue. Farmers should not have to wait any longer for certainty regarding the programs they will operate under. I regret that the bill has taken so long. The process itself has contributed to a poor outcome for American agriculture and for rural American communities. There are some positive sections of the bill-- conservation, nutrition, and needed funding for rural development. But the commodity provisions take us exactly in the wrong direction. The bill decouples Government support from production and from market prices. It caps loan rates at low levels. And it directs the majority of taxpayer payments to the largest, most affluent farms to the same degree as the status-quo programs which operate so unfairly now. It would be more appropriate to refer to this legislation as the ``corporate agribusiness bill'' than as a farm bill. After a few short years, American farmers will be left to the tender mercies of a global marketplace that is dominated by corporate conglomerates and trading boards. We might have produced a better farm bill if our debate over it had been more timely and deliberate. The effort to include an entire 7-year bill in last year's budget reconciliation bill, with little debate and practically no input from Democrats, followed by the now-successful push to pass a plan that was not subjected to extensive hearings or substantial input from rural America has produced a bad bill. Better proposals were offered in both the House and the Senate, including a reform bill introduced here last year by Senate Minority Leader Daschle, which I was proud to cosponsor. But those proposals were never given real consideration. This bill is as deeply flawed now as when I voted against its original Senate version. It was not improved by the conference committee. It does not represent good farm policy and will not likely promote economic revitalization in rural America. I will vote against it now, and it is my hope that as this bill's flaws become even more apparent in its implementation, the result will be its reconsideration by the next Congress so that more genuinely progressive reform of Federal farm policy can be enacted. Some people, including some Minnesotans, believe that the so-called freedom-to-farm approach to farm policy is the best way forward for American agriculture. I profoundly disagree with that judgment. I believe it is designed to benefit large corporate agribusiness and will actually harm most family farmers. It will likely increase current trends toward economic concentration in agriculture, to the disadvantage of small and moderate-sized farm operations. I have consistently favored long-term Federal farm policy that would promote family agriculture and revitalize our rural economy. That is not what freedom-to-farm represents. It is such bad policy that it will discredit farm programs forever. The public will not support farm programs that write checks to farmers when prices are high, and no matter what, or even whether anything, is planted. During initial consideration, Senator Dorgan offered an amendment which I supported, which would have required that farmers plant a crop in order to receive the guaranteed Government payment. That was voted down. I don't think this is the kind of policy that reaches out to the general public for support at a time when we are looking at slashing the budgets for health care and education programs. Freedom-to-farm represents a dubious carrot followed by a very real stick. What is the short-term carrot? The carrot is so-called ``contract'' payments, or ``transition'' payments on the way to the elimination of farm programs. Farmers who have some debt, or who have had a poor crop in the past couple of years, or who did not get good prices last year, would like a Government payment this year on top of decent prices. There is no question about that. I understand why some people consider that promise attractive. They believe that a promise of 7 years of payments is the best they will get from this Congress. But the contracts cannot be guaranteed. Congress can do another budget bill at any time and reduce or eliminate the payments. The entire purpose of freedom-to-farm is to reduce farm- program spending, then eliminate it. Even current policy, which I have never supported, offers farmers more protection over seven years than freedom-to-farm. What is the medium-term and the long-term stick? Prices will not stay where they are likely to be this year. Freedom-to-farm caps loan rates at 1995 levels. As the so-called guaranteed payments diminish, and then when they run out, how many Minnesota farmers can make a living off of $1.89-a-bushel corn, or $2.58-a-bushel wheat? Is that the future we want to leave our young farmers? That is the reality of freedom-to-farm. It ultimately leaves farmers to the tender mercies of the grain companies and the railroads and the Chicago Board of Trade--$1.89 corn is what freedom-to-farm is about. Maybe not this year. But who believes that prices will always be strong? I voted for an amendment to lift the caps off the loan rates. That amendment failed. If farm policy were designed to deliver farmers a fair price in the marketplace, there would be no need for any Government payments. But this bill is designed to encourage maximum production and low prices. I have supported what I consider to be genuine reform of farm programs. I cosponsored a 7-year proposal last year which called for a targeted marketing-loan approach. That plan would provide farmers the planting flexibility they need. But it also would provide needed long- term protection from some of the uncertainties that farmers face-- uncertainties of weather, and of markets that are dominated by large multinational companies. It also would raise loan rates and target farm-program benefits to family-size farmers. I still believe that our proposal, modeled after the Farmers Union plan and endorsed by the Minnesota corn growers, was the best proposal. Perhaps the debate over agriculture policy in the United States will be resumed next year. I intend to see that it is. Mr. President, I have been working since I arrived to the Senate 5 years ago to achieve an improvement in Federal dairy policy and meaningful reform of the Federal milk marketing orders. This bill does not achieve that goal. Some small improvements in dairy policy were included in the conference committee, notably the elimination of assessments. But not nearly enough. And the bill now will allow creation of a Northeast dairy compact, despite our overwhelming vote here during initial consideration of the farm bill against that outcome, and despite the fact that the compact was not in either the House or Senate version of the bill. The Northeast compact would only further forestall real Federal order reform. It would cut a special deal for one region's dairy farmers to the detriment of dairy farmers in the Upper Midwest. And it would set a bad precedent for interstate commerce in milk by creating new regional barriers. We need good national dairy policy. And I will continue to resist establishment of a Northeast compact in the absence of substantial reform which will benefit the Midwest. Minnesota and Wisconsin are the best natural dairy-producing states in the country. It is not rational that Federal policy should drive thousands of Minnesota producers from business. Mr. President, I am pleased that we finally have authorized the enrollment of new acres into the successful and popular Conservation Reserve Program [CRP]. I worked very hard on that. And I am pleased that we could include some additional conservation, rural development and nutrition provisions. It is very important that we ensure that rural development efforts include assistance for farmer-owned, value- added processing cooperatives, which represent an extremely hopeful development in rural America. They are the best of rural America's innovative, self-help tradition, which keeps capital and jobs in local communities. Safe Meat and Poultry Inspection Panel

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues. I am sorry we are all here at once. I will try to be very brief. I have been on the floor for some time waiting to speak. Mr. President, first of all, let me just thank all of my colleagues for their work on the bill, including the distinguished Senator from Indiana, whom I have a tremendous amount of respect for. I mean that very sincerely. Let me say that the good news is that farmers need to know where they stand. The spring planting season is upon us. People need to know what the program is going to be. The good news is that there are some programs, some provisions in this legislation that are positive and very important. One of them is the reauthorization of the Conservation Reserve Program, which I think has been a win- win-win program. It does my heart good when environmentalists and farmers and outdoor recreation people all come to my office, all in strong agreement about the importance of this program. I also think that the $300 million for rural economic development is extremely important. In particular, the focus on encouraging and providing whatever kind of assistance we can for farmers to form their own value-added processing co-ops and retain as much of the value of what they produce as possible, is right on the mark. Finally, I am no strong supporter of what was the status quo, and I do believe, as my colleague from North Dakota said, in all too many cases farmers have had to farm a farm bill as opposed to farm the land. No question about it: more flexibility is certainly one of the things that farmers in my State have been very interested in. Let me talk about two fundamental flaws of this piece of legislation. I take very serious exception--and I do not think it is really provincial on my part to do so--to the dairy provisions. It has to do with why we are elected. We are elected to do our best, to speak for and represent and sometimes, I suppose, fight for people in our States. I thought that the Senate had spoken clearly that we were not in favor of a northeast dairy compact. I was very involved in the effort to knock that provision out. In the conference committee, we got a variation of that, giving the Secretary of Agriculture the right to certify such a compact. That troubles me to no end. It is a huge flaw in this legislation. The dairy provisions of this bill are not favorable to farmers in Minnesota, period. There is not substantial, genuine reform of the milk marketing order system, which is what we need. We have been losing thousands of dairy farmers in my State. What this potential northeast dairy compact is all about is it gives one region of the country an opportunity to have its own deal while it takes the problems of another region of the country off the table. It is simply unfair. For that reason alone, I would not vote for this farm bill. The second reason is--and I could go on and on, but I am not going to out of deference to my colleagues who are also here on the floor to speak--but to make a very long story short, I believe that this piece of legislation is fundamentally flawed in one other respect. What we have here is a carrot followed by a stick. The carrot is that if prices are high--and they currently are--and in addition to your price, you have a hefty support payment that goes on top of that, it is a carrot. I can hardly blame people for being attracted to that proposition. As a matter of fact, I can hardly blame some farmers in my State who I think are saying, ``Look, we don't know, Paul, whether there's going to be any farm program in the future. We might as well get the best financial deal that we can.'' I understand that. But the question is, what happens in the future? I heard my colleague from Idaho talk about a glidepath. But glidepath to where? I mean, if we are going to cap the loan rate at $1.89 for a bushel of corn and $2.58 for a bushel of wheat, the 1995 level, my question is, since what goes up, comes down, and what happens when prices are low again? That is the stick. That comes later on. We are talking about children of farmers who want to farm in the future. We are talking about whether or not farmers are going to have any negotiating power in the marketplace. I think what happens is that eventually, with this piece of legislation, the grain farmers in my State will be on their own. They are on their own with the grain companies, and they are on their own with the Board of Trade. They are on their own with the railroad interests. I agree with my colleague from North Dakota. I think the Tulsa World had it right: ``With a mix of luck, work and unusual organization, the lobby for big grain companies, railroads, meat companies, millers and shippers scored a big win in the Senate-passed overhaul of farm programs . . .'' Mr. President, again, there is so much more to say. Let me put it this way. I wish there was a free market in agriculture. I wish Adam Smith's invisible hand was operative. I wish that in the food industry we had many small economic enterprises in competition with one another. But that is not what a rigorous economic analysis of the food industry really shows us. The conglomerates have muscled their way to the dinner table, exercising raw economic and political power over farmers, taxpayers, and consumers. Everywhere the farmers look, whether it is on the input side or whether it is the output side, they are the ones, the family farmers are the ones, who really represent the free enterprise part of this, but they are faced with oligarchy at best and monopoly at worst. I think this bill is a piece of legislation that is great for the grain companies because eventually they will get their prices low. If the farmers, as they look to who they sold their products to, if the farmers could see many small businesses, that would be fine. But that is not what they are faced with. They are faced with concentration. Now we are simply taking away the very leverage that farmers have had for a fair price in the marketplace. So this piece of legislation is a carrot, followed by a stick. I think it is going to lead to the demise of many family farms. I really do believe that. I know my colleagues disagree with me. I hope they are right. I hope I am wrong. Because the health and the vitality of communities in Minnesota is not based upon the acres of land that are farmed or the number of animals, but the number of family farmers that live there. I see this piece of legislation being a stacked deck against family farmers on the grain front. On the dairy front, the Northeast dairy compact is outrageous and discriminatory and never should have been put in the bill by the conference committee. On that basis alone, as a Senator from Minnesota, I do not support this piece of legislation. I hope my colleagues will vote ``no.'' I yield the floor.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Absolutely. I would be pleased to do so.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I have to go to the State Department for an arrangement between a Minnesota company and another country in 15 minutes. That is why I have been here early.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, 2 weeks ago I came to the floor to announce the realization of another component of our initiative to prevent violence against women--the national domestic violence hotline. At that time, I indicated that I would come to the floor every day for 2 weeks, whenever my colleagues would be kind enough to give me about 30 seconds of time, to read off the 800 number of the hotline. The toll free number, 1-800-799-SAFE, will provide immediate crisis assistance, counseling, and local shelter referrals to women across the country, 24 hours a day. There is also a TDD number for the hearing impaired, 1-800-787-3224. Mr. President, roughly 1 million women are victims of domestic violence each year and battering may be the single most common cause of injury to women--more common than auto accidents, muggings, or rapes by a stranger. According to the FBI, one out of every two women in America will be beaten at least once in the course of an intimate relationship. The FBI also speculates that battering is the most under-reported crime in the country. It is estimated that the new hotline will receive close to 10,000 calls a day. I hope that the new national domestic violence hotline will help women and families find the support, assistance, and services they need to get out of homes where there is violence and abuse. Mr. President, once again, the toll free number is 1-800-799-SAFE, and 1-800-787-3224, for the hearing impaired.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, 2 weeks ago, I came to the floor to announce the realization of another component of our initiative to prevent violence against women--the national domestic violence hotline. At that time, I indicated that I would come to the floor every day for 2 weeks, whenever my colleagues would be kind enough to give me about 30 seconds of time, to read off the 800 number of the hotline. The toll-free number, 1-800-799-SAFE, will provide immediate crisis counseling, and local shelter referrals to women across the country, 24 hours a day. There is also a TDD number for the hearing impaired, 1- 800-787-3224. Mr. President, roughly 1 million women are victims of domestic violence each year and battering may be the single most common cause of injury to women--more common than auto accidents, muggings, or rapes by a stranger. According to the FBI, one of every two women in America will be beaten at least once in the course of an intimate relationship. The FBI also speculates that battering is the most under-reported crime in the country. It is estimated that the new hotline will receive close to 10,000 calls a day. I hope that the new national domestic violence hotline will help women and families find the support, assistance, and services they need to get out of homes where there is violence and abuse. Mr. President, once again, the toll-free number is 1-800-787-3224, for the hearing impaired.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that privilege of the floor be granted to Paul Mazur during the duration of the debate on this bill

Mr. WELLSTONE. So what the Senator is saying is that right now, $4.25 an hour, what happens is that with a family, you have somebody working 40 hours a week, 52 weeks a year and still not making poverty wages. If we were to raise this minimum wage in the amendment we want to offer, I think the senior Senator from Massachusetts said this would be an additional $1,800. I know what this means to a family in Minnesota, but for a working family in Massachusetts, what does that mean? What does $1,800 mean? Let us talk in real people terms so that people understand this is not some party strategy, this is about people's lives, and we think this is critically important to do. As of the moment, we cannot even get our colleagues on the other side to debate. What does this mean to people in Massachusetts?

Mr. WELLSTONE. Might I ask the Senator two more questions?

Mr. WELLSTONE. I wonder, given the bipartisan support since 1938, can the Senator answer the question for me, what would be the basis now for the opposition of the majority leader, Senator Dole, and others in preventing us from even having this amendment out on the floor and having an up-or-down vote? Does the Senator have any idea, given this bipartisan support, given how important it is to working families, given the fact we have heard the majority leader campaign around the country about the importance of working families and fairness, what would be the basis of opposition to our having this amendment on the floor and having this debate? Does the Senator have any idea?

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

Mr. WELLSTONE. Thank you, Mr. President. I would like to thank both my colleagues from Massachusetts. Let me just get back to basics. This amendment that I thought we were going to lay down this morning is simple and straightforward. It would increase the minimum wage, the Federal minimum wage from the current $4.25 an hour to $5.15 an hour over the next 2 years. That is all. Mr. President, 90 cents over 2 years, no indexing to adjust for the cost of living, no other things to complicate the debate. A straightforward proposition--raise the Federal minimum wage from $4.25 an hour for working families in our country, to $5.15 an hour over 2 years, and 90 cents over 2 years. For some reason my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, at least as of this morning, do not want us to be able to lay this amendment out on the floor of the Senate and have the debate and vote for it up or down. I would just say to my colleagues, that this is simple, this is straightforward. My colleague from Massachusetts, Senator Kerry, talked about CEO salaries. Let me just be blunt. The U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate sure as heck voted themselves a huge raise, an increase from about $100,000 a few years ago to $130,000 a year. I heard my colleagues tell me that, you know, you have kids in college and there is additional expenses and all of the rest. Fair enough. But if the U.S. Senate can vote for a salary increase from $100,000 to $130,000 a year--and the House took the action earlier--do you not think it is about time we are willing to raise the minimum wage from $4.25 an hour to $5.15 an hour over 2 years? Do you not think it is about time that we would be willing to raise the minimum wage by 90 cents over 2 years? Mr. President, I do not know what the majority leader plans on doing. But it does seem to me that we have now reached the point where regardless of the strategies and regardless of whatever parliamentary ruling there might be, it is going to be very difficult for Senators to essentially finesse this issue. Because while we are putting off the debate, at least for the moment, there are many Americans who have to live with this minimum wage. We are putting the debate off on the minimum wage this morning, while many Americans have to live with it. For 200,000 working people and their families in Minnesota, this is an extremely important issue. Later on, Mr. President, when we get to the debate, I will talk about people. I do not want it to be abstract. But let me just tell you, whether it is a single parent working or whether it is two parents working, this debate about the minimum wage, this effort to raise the minimum wage, is absolutely key toward providing people with a ladder to get into the middle class. This is a fundamental economic justice question. I will just say one more time, I came to the floor about 10:30. I thought we had an understanding that we would go forward with this amendment. My hope is that after the caucuses meet at lunch we will be able to do so, that we will be able to lay down our amendment, that we will have debate on this amendment, and that Senators will be accountable, Democrats and Republicans alike. Because I will tell you; in Minnesota, the cafe discussion is whether or not your children are going to be able to find jobs at a decent wage. The cafe discussion is whether or not you can pay your mortgage payment or whether you can pay your rent. The cafe discussion is whether you can afford to send your kids to college. The cafe discussion is on the economic squeeze that families feel. The vast majority of people in Minnesota and the vast majority of people all across this country want to see us take action on this. I say one more time, the U.S. Senate and the U.S. House of Representatives did not seem to have any problem in voting ourselves a huge pay increase. Do you not think it is about time we vote for a pay increase for working families in this country, and set some kind of decent, humane, compassionate minimum wage floor for working men and women and their children? That is what this is about. I do not think anybody is going to be able to hide from this debate. I do not think there is going to be any way of maneuvering around this debate. I am just speaking for myself. I am not even speaking for my two colleagues from Massachusetts. But I intend to be a part of this effort to introduce this amendment over and over and over again. You cannot duck. You cannot hide. It is an important economic issue. It is an important economic opportunity issue. It is all about working men and women and their children. It is all about economic justice. It is all about fairness. And it is time we get serious about these kinds of issues in the U.S. Senate. I hope this afternoon after lunch we will have the opportunity to lay down our amendment and then we will have this debate. Then we will have a positive, affirmative vote for working men, women, and children in the State of Minnesota. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. KENNEDY addressed the Chair.

Mr. WELLSTONE. If I can ask one other question, because I am trying to understand the disconnect between politics in Washington today where at least for the moment you have a Presidential candidate, the majority leader, who does not seem to want us to have a debate on this versus what we hear back in our States. In Massachusetts, as you visit with families and spend time in communities, do you find that people talk a lot about the importance of jobs, of decent wages and raising the minimum wage? Is this an issue that you hear about all the time from people you represent?

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. I will defer to my colleague from Massachusetts. I will take 1 minute. I have been in the Chamber since this morning with my two colleagues. This amendment is simple and straightforward. It would increase the minimum wage from $4.25 an hour to $5.15 over 2 years--90 cents over 2 years. I will say it one more time. Senators and Representatives gave themselves, a few years ago, a very hefty salary increase from about $100,000 a year to about $130,000 a year. It seems to me we can give heads of working families the same kind of increase. I do not think this is too much to ask. I think this is very much about economic fairness. While we are putting off a vote on this, there are many people who have to live with this minimum wage. This is extremely important to 200,000 working families in my State, much less their children, and I believe this effort to just block having an up- or-down vote goes against the grain of what is called accountability. We will bring this amendment up over and over and over and over again until there is a vote. I yield the floor. Mr. KERRY addressed the Chair.