Paul Wellstone

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, both my colleagues and good friends, the Senator from Iowa and the Senator from Wyoming, break my heart. First of all, actually with this amendment, under current law, if you are over a thousand animal units, you don't get any EQIP money whatsoever. Under my amendment, if you are over a thousand animal units, you can get the money. We go from $10,000 to $30,000 a year. If you are over a thousand units, you can get money. You can't right now. We are saying that if you are under a thousand units and you want to expand to over a thousand, or you are over and you want to expand even further and you want to get bigger and bigger, at that point the Government ought not to be subsidizing this expansion. This is a reform amendment. This is consistent with those who are in support of payment limitations. This is ranked by the environmental community as a key environmental amendment because it is crazy for the Federal Government to be subsidizing this environmental destruction. I say to my colleague from Iowa, we are going to provide the money. Right now, under current law, if you are over a thousand animal units, you can't get EQIP money. Under this amendment, you can. If you want to expand it more and get bigger, at that point it is not appropriate for the Government to provide the payments. That is exactly what the Grassley amendment is going to say when it comes to payment limitations. It is exactly the same philosophy. This is a reform amendment. It is an environmental amendment. It is an amendment that is for our independent producers. If you look in your State and at your producers, the vast majority of them are helped by this amendment, as opposed to current law. The only thing this amendment says is, if you want to get bigger and expand even more, at that point, you are not going to get any more Government money. This is a reform amendment. It deserves support. I yield the floor, and if my colleagues want to yield back the remainder of their time, I will do so also.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I yield back the remainder of my time.

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

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Of course. The Senator's words are near and dear to my heart. The answer is yes. That is why I decided to come out on the floor. I was thinking to myself: We are trying to have a simple extension of unemployment insurance; are we not down to 13 additional weeks? In my State of Minnesota, we are focused on what is going on with education, what is happening to our children, what is happening to our schools, and where the resources are. Why can't we get the money for special education? Why can't we do better making sure the kids come to kindergarten ready to learn? Why can't we do more with afterschool programs? Look at this budget from the administration. What you find from what the President is proposing is all of these discussions about priorities and values. But we are not going to have the money for prescription drug benefits. We are going to say in Minnesota if you are an individual with an income of $13,000 or under, or a couple with an income of $17,000 or under, you are eligible, but the rest of you aren't. We have about over 600,000, and closer to 700,000, Medicare recipients. The income profile is not high. Many of them have incomes over this, but they cannot afford prescription drug benefits. They are out. The small business 7(a) program is cut in half. They are out. One would eliminate homeless programs for veterans. That is out. One would eliminate true north economic development work on the Iron Range in Minnesota. That is out. One would eliminate help in funding for childcare in Minneapolis. That is out. They want to go after empowerment zones and enterprise zones in Minneapolis. That is now out. They want to go after affordable housing. That is out. Help for school counselors is out. Rural education is out--all for the sake of Robin- Hood-in-reverse tax cuts giving away money to the wealthiest citizens in the country. These are distorted priorities. This is a no-brainer. I think I am going to make this point over and over again. Let me frame the issue differently. What we have out here is an amendment that says eliminate the estate tax for the wealthiest citizens in the country--I mean the very wealthy. It is not targeted. I would be for actually targeting this. I wouldn't mind at all doing something that would help our family farms and small businesses. We should do that. That is not what this amendment does. We have an amendment targeted to the wealthiest citizens in the United States of America which will deplete this economy over the next 10 years at the very time baby boomers are 65 years of age and over. I am one of them. This amendment further depletes the Social Security trust fund. That is one of the issues that people have to understand. With the President's budget proposal, we are talking about over the next 10 years taking close to $1 trillion out of the Social Security trust fund, and now another $855 billion over the next 20 years, all for the sake of tax breaks for the very wealthy, the very powerful, and the very well connected. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle don't want to move forward with--I don't even know what you call it anymore--lifeline legislation, some help for people who are out of work, some extension of unemployment benefits. They don't want to do that. I would like to have included coverage for the working poor and part- time workers. I would like to have increased benefits. I would certainly like to have included some help for COBRA and health care coverage. Most of that is not in here. It is just a simple extension of unemployment insurance. It is hardly anything else. They oppose that but instead come out here with a $855 billion program over the next 20 years with all of it going to the wealthiest of Americans. That is basically the choice we have. I would love to do a poll in coffee shops in Minnesota and across the country as to what people think about these choices. Judge me by what I do. Judge me by my budget--not by my words. When you start to look at the details of this budget, it is breathtaking. I am for homeland defense. I think we need to do a lot better. We need to do a lot better with our northern border control. We need to get the public health infrastructure out there. God forbid there is a terrorist attack. We need to be prepared. First of all, we need to try to prevent it. If it happens, we need to be prepared. I am for strong defense. I hope Senators will carefully scrutinize this budget. We have before us--between the dramatic increase in the Pentagon budget and all of these tax cuts with about 40 or 50 percent going to the top 1 percent of the population--I am now talking about tax cuts that have already passed. Now we have this estate tax. With this House proposal, they want to repeal the alternative minimum tax. I don't think they want to reach back to the mid-1980s. That is too embarrassing. Ronald Reagan was for it. The whole idea in 1986 was not to make these multinational corporations pay any taxes when all the other people in the country were. You have $13 billion in tax breaks for multinational corporations. You have Robin-Hood-in-reverse tax cuts with about 40 or 50 percent going to the top 1 percent of the population. You have a $855 billion reckless proposal to do away with the estate tax for the richest and wealthiest Americans in the country while at the same time cutting homeless vets programs; cuts in small business programs; cuts in childcare; cuts in empowerment zone; cuts in economic development programs for the Iron Range; cuts in counselor programs; not live up to your commitment and promise on special education, helping our kids, helping our school districts, and helping our children; don't live up to your commitment on the Pell grant program; cuts in job training during a recession and during hard economic times when people in northeast Minnesota, or in greater Minnesota, or in metro Minnesota, many of them are going back to school, or trying to go into a job training program for skills development. They have been spit out of the economy. They are looking for training so they can get back to work--cut those programs. My party needs to find its voice. Majority Leader Daschle has been out there and he has been vilified. I smile. I think sometimes it is an effort to make him out to be a Newt Gingrich of the left. It is outrageous. But this party, my party, the Democratic Party, is supposed to be the party of the people. If there ever were a time for us to find our voice and for us to speak out and for our country to have a real debate about these values, it is now. In the words of Rabbi Hillel: If not now, when? Personally, I think the thing I feel worse about is the children in relation to the education piece. I am going to be one of these people, in not too many years, who is going to be over 65 years old. Lord, we have six grandchildren. I just took our granddaughter Cari to see ``Fiddler on the Roof.'' There is that song: ``Sunrise, Sunset.'' I don't know what has happened to the time. I believe that ultimately the way we are judged is in relation to what we have done for our children, what we have done for our grandchildren. Have we made this country better and this world better for them? I think that is how we are judged. I think that is how we are judged as parents and I think that is how we are judged as adults. I think that is how we are judged as Senators. I think that is how we are judged as Representatives. I think that is how we are judged as a nation. How have we done for our children? We are not doing very well. In this budget, we flat-lined affordable child care. I think only about 10 percent of low-income families are able to participate in affordable child care right now because that is all the funding there is. We say we love the little children and are concerned about the development of the brain and that we want children to read better, but we have funded Early Head Start at about the 3- or 4-percent level. We could be a real player for children prekindergarten. We could make a real difference. We could do so much more for our schools. We could live up to our commitment on special education. For title I--I am sorry, I have indignation--they make the claim we have added $1 billion and that this is great. In real dollar terms, there is no additional money because there are more children who are eligible for title I. We are going to test these children, all in the name of rigor. So you go to a Bancroft Elementary School and, big surprise, 80, 90 percent of them are on a free or reduced school lunch program; 60 percent of them are in homes where English is the second language; and 20, 25 percent of them move several times during the year for lack of affordable housing. There is a key education program, and there is no more funding for that. In fact, they are cutting funding for affordable housing, and we are surprised these children do not do as well? And we do not give them any more help to do better. I think this is a debate about values. Everybody wants to talk about family values. This is a family value. How are we doing for our children? How are we doing for our grandchildren? Are we making life better for them? Are we going to make it possible for them to be good leaders in the future? I think we have some seriously distorted priorities out there. I hope my party will directly challenge them. A reporter said to me: The President is very popular. Does that make it hard for Democrats to be critical? I said: Look, it is good for people to do well. The President is doing well in terms of the polls. Fine. But the real issue is whether or not we are willing to speak up for what we think is right, for what we believe in, for what we think is best for States and best for the country. That is what people want us to do. It is important, as Democrats, that we find our voice. I yield the floor.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank my colleague. I say to the Senator from Arizona, I thank him for his graciousness. I do not know what the dynamic is here. I know there is an amendment I want to do again with Senator Durbin and Senator Dayton. My understanding is we may not be able to do that so there may be some problems in terms of what amendments we are able to vote on before cloture tomorrow. However, I want to make it clear, and I assume this would make the Senator from Arizona feel better, I do want to go on record as to where I stand whether there is a vote or not. I am in very strong opposition to the amendment of the Senator from Arizona. The good news is that in the short run, just a complete repeal of the estate tax would be over the first 10 years about $55 billion. The bad news is, over the second 10 years, when many will be 65 years of age and over, and we will all be looking to see what is in the Social Security trust fund and what is in Medicare, this amendment will cost $800 billion. I say to the presiding Chair, I had interesting discussions with business people in Minnesota who say I am wrong. They need some help for when we pass our business to our children. I said: How about up to $5 million? And they say that would be reasonable. But that is not what we are talking about. We are talking about an amendment that does away with all of the estate tax. I have a figure that actually 636 Minnesotans paid the estate tax in 1999. When we hear about small farmers and small businesspeople, we are talking about the top, of the top, of the top, of the top of the population. For example, I don't pick on Bill Gates. I think he just did a good thing, talking about where is the United States and other countries in terms of our commitment to developing nations. But I don't think the Gates family really needs any help. And I think it is a little outrageous to take $800 billion out of the Social Security trust fund at the very time that many of the baby boom generation are going to be turning 65 years of age and over. That is exactly what we got in the President's budget. I say to my colleague from Arizona, whether there is a vote or not, I am on record opposed to this, and pleased to be opposed to it. I find absolutely incredible the situation now. We have a budget that comes out from the President. We find we are going to eliminate the empowerment zones in our city. In Minneapolis, they are extremely important. The budget will actually eliminate the grants to the empowerment zones. What is supposed to be for additional child care or affordable housing will not be there, and the budget will cut the 7(a) program in the State of Minnesota. Since 1996, we leveraged $1 billion to small businesses in the State of Minnesota. We will cut the 7(a) program in half. That is $1 billion of capital we have been able to leverage to small business. It will cut the 7(a) program by 50 percent. I hear Secretary Paige say in order to figure out how to make up for potential cuts in the Pell Program, because we keep the maximum at $4,000 a year, we will take away from true north in Minnesota. It also affects telework, people trying to find jobs and develop businesses at a time when our steelworkers are losing their jobs. Then we will go after child care. Then we go after homeless votes. Then we will cut counselors and there is no additional money for affordable child care, no additional money for Head Start. My gosh. I hear this administration; they love the children. They are all for the small children. I am sorry to be cynical, but in the words of Fannie Lou Hamer, who once said, ``I am sick and tired of being sick and tired,'' I am sick and tired of this symbolism. Then, I say to the Presiding Officer, we are still waiting. The Senate did a good job; Republicans did a good job--bipartisan. We were going to make the program for children, for special education, mandatory over 6 years, full funding. It would have helped our State $45 million this year, $2 billion, I say to Senator Dayton, over the next 10 years. None of that is in the budget. But now what we have is a proposal that over the next 10 years--I mean the first 10 years, $55 billion--is bad enough. The next 10 years, when we are not going to have money because the administration has taken the money out of the Social Security and Medicare trust funds, put us into deficit, and then by the Kyl amendment, over the second 10 years, it is $800 billion. This is simply unacceptable, and I want to make clear how strongly I am in opposition.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I am pleased to.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I say to my colleague from Nevada, the truth is--first of all, even if I did think extending unemployment insurance was not a stimulus to the economy, I would be for it because we ought to help people who are flat on their backs through no fault of their own. Second of all, Joseph Stiglitz, who was with the World Bank, a fine economist, is exactly right. It is not just him, it is just about every economist you talk with, much less people back in Minnesota, talking to people in their homes and coffee shops, who all know, by definition, if you are going to extend unemployment insurance to people and put some additional dollars in their pockets, they have to go out and buy necessities for their families. They are living month to month trying to pay their bills, so of course they are going to use that money to consume, and of course it is going to stimulate the economy as opposed to--here is the interesting question, I say to my colleague--ending all of the estate tax, which, by the way, again, 636 Minnesotans pay; you have to be super, super wealthy, rich. What we are going to do instead is end that for everyone--not target it, not $5 million or $6 million, just end it for Bill Gates, who is doing good work right now, again dealing with the developing world. We are going to give it to him, and that is somehow going to stimulate the economy. But extending unemployment insurance for people who are out of work, that is not going to stimulate the economy? I think that argument is profoundly mistaken.

Mr. WELLSTONE. That is correct.

Mr. WELLSTONE. There are two points I would like to make for my colleague. I don't know if he would agree with the second point, but we could have a good colloquy about this. First of all, the Senate is designed as a deliberative body. There is going to be debate. That is part of what makes the Senate unique. Sometimes it can drive you crazy, but what makes the Senate unique is the unlimited amendments and unlimited debate. So you have the 60-vote requirement, quite often, on all pieces of legislation. That is the Senate. That is the way the Senate operates. But my second point is a little bit different, which is, frankly, I hate to say this, however many votes you get in the Senate, sometimes there is a disconnect between the Senate votes and the people we represent. I have to tell you this. The House proposal that comes over here, that House proposal is a proposal that repeals the alternative minimum tax. That House proposal is a proposal that gives away money, gives tax breaks to companies such as Enron. It gives $1 billion General Electric, for this multinational corporation. By the way, that is in the President's budget proposal: $13 billion of tax breaks for the Enrons of this world, yet we don't have the money for children in education; we are cutting the Low Income Energy Assistance Program; we don't have the money for affordable housing. I say to my colleague again, if you talked to the vast majority of people in the country, they would say: What in the world are you doing? If you are going to have an economic recovery package, at least extend unemployment insurance, at least help the people who need the help, at least get the money in the hands of people who will consume. Yes, there is a 60-vote requirement, and then there is the substance. I am sorry to say this. I am well aware that up until very recently the Enrons of this world have had way too much influence here, and I am well aware of the fact that some of these other big multinationals are big givers, heavy hitters, investors, and have a lot of clout. But the truth is, the vast majority of people in Minnesota and the rest of the country cannot understand this at all. They don't know what in the world giving tax breaks and tax loopholes for these big multinational corporations has to do with fairness, or has to do with economic recovery, or has to do with helping people who are unemployed, or underemployed, or subemployed, or among the ranks of the working poor.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Close to 5.

Mr. WELLSTONE. It was 636.

Mr. WELLSTONE. We are up to about--the percentage is about 4.5 or 5 percent, I think, unemployment in Minnesota right now.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Oh, yes. I think it is about 5-percent unemployment, which is quite high for our State. That is the official definition of unemployment. That doesn't include the people who quit looking for work because they are discouraged, or people who are working part time because they cannot find a full-time job, or people working way under the wages they would normally make in a better economy, or people who work but still have poverty wages. There was a report last week indicating that almost a third of adult Minnesotans are working jobs at under $10 an hour.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask that the Record show that I was necessarily absent for this evening's vote on the nomination of Callie Granade to be U.S. district judge for the Southern District of Alabama. I was attending the visitation for Minnesota State Representative Darlene Luther, who passed away last week. Had I been present, I would have voted in favor of the nomination.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Madam President, I cannot do this in a minute, but I will try. My colleague from Iowa is grasping at straws. This is not about States rights; it is about workers' rights. This is about helping in Minnesota 217,218 workers. This is about helping working poor part-time workers. My phone is not ringing off the hook. In fact, we talked to people back home at the State level. Our State governments are not telling us do not give us additional help on unemployment insurance. There is no additional expenditure for the States. States are asking for the help. This is a matter of workers' rights. This is a matter of helping part- time workers, the working poor people, who then consume more which helps the economy. It is win-win-win. I doubt whether Senators are getting a lot of pressure from the working families in their States, much less State officials, saying: Please, do not help us with unemployment insurance with people flat on their backs through no fault of their own. I yield the floor.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be able to follow the majority leader.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I will be pleased to yield. I will follow the Senator.

Mr. WELLSTONE. If the majority leader wants to respond, I will withhold for the majority leader.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Please.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I just will build on what I think the majority leader was saying. I will be very honest. I was listening to him propound this unanimous consent request, and I was thinking: We are talking about four provisions. I don't know how any Senator can disagree with any of them: The tax rebates, the business relief--we can go over all of them--the State stimulus which is critically important for Medicaid, and the extension of 13 weeks of unemployment benefits. Then I think the request was saying there would be two--how many amendments on each side?--four amendments all together.

Mr. WELLSTONE. So what I was thinking about was: Look, I can think of a number of amendments I would want to do alone, which would extend unemployment benefits beyond 13 weeks, which would bump up the benefits, which would increase the eligibility. What about health care assistance? I am thinking that might not be enough. But then I was thinking: Look, here is what we agree on; and then Senators from both sides of the aisle can bring other amendments to the floor. And I am sure the distinguished Senators from Oklahoma or Wyoming have other ideas. So do several other Senators. And then we just move forward. We have amendments. We vote on them. We are all accountable for our votes. But we do the work of democracy as opposed to one big, gigantic stall, which is what we are actually experiencing right now. That is what this is about. I simply want to say that, to me--I keep struggling to do this. I keep struggling to connect all this sort of strategy and tactics with people's lives back home. Sometimes it is hard to do it. We get here and get so caught up in how we are going to get it done. The majority leader is trying to move this forward now. But I will tell you, there are so many people who are flat on their backs through no fault of their own. They are running out--if they have not already-- of unemployment insurance. They do not have any health care coverage. The States are in a world of trouble right now in terms of their own budgets and Medicaid costs. We could pass this. And maybe there will be some amendments that will be introduced on both sides that will improve upon this. Political truth is elusive. My guess is the definition of ``improvement'' of several of my colleagues from the other side might not be my definition. I will have amendments. I will want to make sure that families can afford to purchase health insurance for themselves and their loved ones. I will want to make sure that part-time workers and working poor are eligible for unemployment insurance and that they get better benefits. And colleagues from the other side will have other amendments. Let's be very clear about this. This is one big, gigantic stall. The whole idea is, let's just put it off. Let's not move forward. It is just one big coordinated political strategy. Maybe it is a great political strategy. But from the point of view of people back home, it is not. I heard my colleague from Arizona--and this is the last thing I will say about the past; then I will look forward from today on--about how we didn't do the work before the break and how the Democrats didn't do this and didn't do that and there was no ``stimulus plan.'' If my memory serves me correctly--again, the Senator from Arizona might not agree--indeed, we had an economic recovery plan. There were 53 votes or maybe 54 votes, and it was blocked on a procedural point. Some would view it as filibuster. We didn't get 60 votes. We had a plan. There were some Republicans who supported it. It was terribly important, and it was blocked. Now my colleagues are just dying to bring over the House measure. I can't remember whether it has the big Enron bailout money in it now or not. Frankly, the House of Representatives tried so hard to reach back to the mid-1980s and get as many billion-dollar or half-a-billion- dollar breaks to this large company or that large company or this family with an income over $500,000 or this family with an income of $1 million, I can't even remember all they were trying to do. With all due respect, ``Robin Hood in reverse'' tax cuts with 50 percent plus of the benefits going to the top 1 percent, not even scheduled to take effect for a couple of years, much less giving $1 billion here and $1 billion there to a different multinational corporation, Enron at one point in time included--that may be too embarrassing to do any longer--I don't think it has a heck of a lot to do with economic recovery. Economic recovery is the here and now. Economic recovery is how you help people who are flat on their backs. Economic recovery is how you help people consume. Economic recovery is Keynesian economics. Economic recovery is how you have a stimulus that really jump starts the economy now. Economic recovery is strategic investment in the economy to get the economy going, not ``Robin Hood in reverse'' tax cuts, not $1 billion here or a half a billion there for this big company and that big multinational corporation, not even scheduled to take effect right now, having nothing to do with getting the economy going right now. But I will tell you what it does do. We will see a lot of this over the next couple of weeks. What it does do is assure a huge, ideological victory for Senators who believe that when it comes to the most pressing issues of people's lives, there is not much the Government can or should do which, by the way, is a great philosophy when you own your own large corporation. It doesn't work for the vast majority of families and working people in our States. If we go forward with what my colleagues are talking about--and I certainly would love for us to go forward; I would like for this unanimous consent request to be accepted--we will start with what Senator Daschle has offered. I don't think very many Senators are opposed to any of these provisions. The Senator from Oklahoma is. In which case, we will have debate. Then we will have an up-or-down vote. Then there will be other amendments. And all of that will work out. But the other part of this is, with all due respect, I think what is happening here right now is, it is about more than economic recovery. That is part of it. This is a big, gigantic stall. My colleagues from the other side of the aisle don't want to move forward on this economic recovery package. We could move forward. We have a minimum of four amendments on each side. We debate them, and we vote on them. And people back home hold us accountable. In addition, what we can agree on, we agree on, which will provide at least some help for people and maybe even some help for the economy. I am not sure actually whether or not we have anywhere near enough of an economic recovery package here, but I sure would like to start with what we agree on. I would sure not like to see this stalled out. The other agenda I want to speak on for a minute or two is this gigantic stall today in the context of trying to add on to the tax cuts which are going to bleed this economy. The truth is, all this discussion, CBO analysis about deficits and where we are going, not only raises questions about the surplus, but you are going to see it in the President's budget plan. You will see a budget plan that basically is going to say, forget the commitment to fully funding IDEA, kids with special needs, and helping out schools and education in our States. That is all I am hearing about back in Minnesota. When I go to the school board meetings, 1,000 people show up at a time. The surpluses are gone. Teachers are being eliminated. Class sizes are going up. Afterschool programs are being eliminated, huge fees for co-curricular activities, be it music or athletics, on and on. And people are saying to me: Paul, thanks. The Senate did a pretty good job on this, a real good job, bipartisan, voted for full funding for kids with special needs. It would have been $2 billion more for our State over the next 10 years. It would have made a difference. It would have been $45 million this year. It was blocked by House Republican leaders, blocked by the administration. I do no damage to the truth. That is what happened. Do you think now we are going to get more of a commitment? Are we going to get anywhere near full funding? Are we going to get anywhere near the resources from the Federal Government back to our school districts, including what we promised? No. And now my colleagues want to add even more ``Robin Hood in reverse'' tax cuts, going to the top 1 percent big multinational companies. That means we have no resources. That is what it is all about. If you don't think we should be doing much by way of education and you don't think we should live up to our promise of prescription drug benefits for the elderly, building on to Medicare, and if you don't think we should do anything about the crisis in affordable housing, I argue to the Chair, who does so much work in education, that affordable housing is becoming the second most important educational program in the country. When 8- year-olds are moving two and three times a year because their families can't afford housing, it is real hard for them to do well in school. I could go on and on because, frankly, it is going to all go on and on. You are going to see it when it comes to the commitment to transportation infrastructure. Veterans are going to ask, what happened to them; how come people are not saying this to them any longer, above and beyond the Fourth of July parades? Across the board, that is what we are going to see. We are heading for a huge debate where the differences make a difference. That is fine with me. It doesn't need to be done. The Senator from Oklahoma came by. We shook hands, had a good time. I like to mix it up with people. It is my nature to like people. But we will just have the differences. The Senator from Texas is out here. He knows what that is about. That is fine. It will be an intellectually honest debate about the role of government, about pressing issues in people's lives, about priorities, about where we make our investments, about how we raise money, about who we support, about how we invest in the economy, about what we do for our children, about whether or not we protect the environment. All of these issues can be debated and should be. What I am little bit skeptical about now is just a big stall. This isn't like a big debate. This is a big stall. That is what my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are about right now. I yield the floor.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, today I introduce, on behalf of myself and Senators DeWine, Dayton, Specter, Mukulski and Bayh the ``Emergency Steel Loan Guarantee Amendments of 2001.'' These amendments to the Steel Loan Guarantee Act of 1999 are designed to make the loan guarantee program more accessible to companies in urgent need of assistance as they attempt to recover from the devastating impacts of enormous, unfair import surges, as well as the effects of the current recession. A strong domestic steel industry is essential to our national security. To ensure the continuing viability of this critical industry and to deal with the current crisis, we must act quickly, and we must act comprehensively. First, the Administration must provide immediate and decisive strong relief in the pending Section 201 steel import surge investigation. That relief needs to include substantial tariffs as well as quotas. Second, we need a formula for industry-wide sharing of the huge retiree health-care cost burdens resulting from the massive layoffs during the 1970's and 1980's. We must protect retirees health care needs without undermining the ability of companies attempting to compete in an increasingly challenging marketplace. Several colleagues and I have previously introduced legislation to accomplish this, and we have urged the Administration to support us in this effort as past of a comprehensive solution to the steel crisis we face today. Finally, companies urgently need access to capital to sustain their operations. This is precisely what the Emergency Steel Loan Guarantee Act of 1999 was designed to insure. The tireless efforts and foresight of Senator Byrd led to the creation of the Emergency Steel Loan Guarantee Board in 1999, but since then massive import surges, the current economic downturn and apparently overly-restrictive interpretations of the Board's authority have made it all but impossible for struggling steel firms to meet the Board's eligibility criteria. The bill we introduce today is designed to address these concerns. It provides the Board with the necessary flexibility to provide these essential loan guarantees. In particular, the bill would do the following: 1. Clarify that a company that has placed its facilities on ``hot idle status'' is eligible to receive a loan guarantee. 2. Increase the amount of loans guaranteed with respect to a single qualified steel company to $350,000,000. 3. Permit the Steel Loan Guarantee Board to guarantee a loan where there is a fair likelihood of repayment, assuming vigorous and timely enforcement of our trade laws and general economic prosperity. 4. Provide flexibility to the Board in structuring security arrangements to maximize participation of lenders. 5. Expand the scope of lenders permitted to participate in a loan subject to the guarantee to include public and private institutions, including the company's existing lenders. 6. Require the Board to adopt form of guarantee regulations no less favorable than those used in other government programs, including the Export-Import bank. 7. Include as a requirement for loan guarantees that the company's business plan maximize both retention of jobs and capacity consistent with the long- term economic viability of the company. 8. Increase the loan guarantee level for all loans to 95 percent. The recent economic conditions facing the U.s. iron ore and steel industry are of particular concern in Minnesota. We are extremely proud of our State's history as the Nation's largest producer of iron ore. The taconite mines on the Iron Range in Minnesota and in our sister State of Michigan have provided key raw materials to the Nation's steel producers for over a century. You will not find a harder-working, more committed group of workers anywhere in this country than you find in the iron ore and taconite industry. This is a group of people who work under the toughest of conditions, are absolutely committed to their families, and who now face dire circumstances, through no fault of their own. Unfairly traded iron ore, semi-finished steel and finished steel products are taking their jobs. Earlier this year, LTV Steel Mining Company halted production at its Hoyt Lakes, MN mine, leaving 1,400 workers out of good paying jobs and affecting nearly 5,000 additional workers. We need to act and we need to act now. Workers in the steel, iron ore and taconite industries want nothing more than the chance to do their jobs. The bill we introduce today is one part of the answer. I urge my colleagues to join with me in moving this legislation as quickly as possible.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I am a cosponsor of this legislation because it is extremely important, but as I noted when the bill was originally introduced, I am concerned about the scope of the antitrust exemption. I have three concerns in particular: There is no opportunity for public comment prior to the granting of an exemption; the period of exemption is too long; and the criteria for granting the exemption are too broad with respect to competitive impact on areas not directly related to the agreement.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Madam President, also to facilitate the Senator from Massachusetts, I think I have 10 minutes separately allotted; is that correct?

Mr. WELLSTONE. I, first of all, say to Senator Specter that was very gracious. Senator Specter and Senator Harkin--Senator Harkin and Senator Specter--are the ones who have led us, the ones who have been the leaders on this bill. So it was important to hear Senator Specter outline this legislation. I thank Senators Harkin and Specter for their leadership. I am very proud of what they have done, given the resources with which we had to work. I also thank Ellen Murray and Bettilou Taylor for their work. For a lot of us, there is a lot in this bill that is important to the people we love and believe in in our States. It is just a fact that a lot of the real tough work is done by the people who work with us. I thank them. I also thank Ellen Gerrity because she is the one who has really driven, for me, and for lots of people, the mental health work. I am blessed to have her working with me. Senator Domenici and I are blessed to have her working with us. On the vote which occurred 2 days ago in the conference committee, 10 House Members basically decided to eliminate the mental health parity legislation which would have ended the discrimination against people who struggle with this illness. This was the chance to end the discrimination, and they decided not to do so. There were 67 Senators who were cosponsors of this legislation. It passed our committee--the HELP Committee--with the leadership of Senator Kennedy, by a 21-to-0 vote. It was unanimously accepted on the floor of the Senate. And 244 House Members called on the conference committee: Please, don't block this legislation. This is an idea whose time has come. You can do something very good. You can end the discrimination against people struggling with this illness. But the insurance companies won the day. The insurance companies lobbied furiously, and they got the House leadership to stop this. And the White House did not give us the support. No. The White House did not give us the support. House leaders say next year they will hold hearings. They never have in the last 6, 7, 8, 9 years, but they say they will hold hearings. The White House says: We want to help next year. They could have helped this year. They could have helped now. It is not as if this discrimination just started yesterday. It is not as if we have not been working on this legislation for years. But they did not help now. But I am confident, working with Senator Domenici--I am proud to work with him--that we will get their support next year. All of the groups and organizations representing all the people who struggle with this illness, and all the people who have loved ones who struggle with this illness, will be back. My hope is that next year there will be a thousand people who struggle with this illness and who have friends and loved ones who struggle with this illness who will go to the House of Representatives and get 1 inch away from these Members who have blocked this bill and say: We are not going to let you do this to us any longer. We are men and women of worth and dignity and substance, and we refuse to accept this discrimination any longer. They argue premiums would go up, but the Congressional Budget Office said premiums would go up 0.9 percent. They say it would be too expensive, but they do not talk about the $70 billion a year that we save by getting the treatment to people who now work, who can work with more productivity, with less absenteeism, or whose children now will be in school and will not be in jail, incarcerated, and needing to receive social services help. The Washington Post editorialized last week that ``the new asylums of the 21st century'' for people struggling with mental illness are the prisons. I visited some of these juvenile ``correctional'' facilities. I have seen these children who never should have been there. I say to Senator Harkin, if there had been treatment for them on the front end, they would have never wound up incarcerated. I went down to a hearing in Houston with Sheila Jackson-Lee. She asked me to come down there. It was packed with desperate parents who talked about the fact that their children ended up in jails because they couldn't get any coverage or help anywhere else. And the leadership of the House of Representatives, doing the bidding of the insurance companies, blocked this bill, and the White House did not help. Now with the insurance industry we have something we have to be careful about. They are saying maybe next year we will cover only serious mental illness. They know that 90 percent of their costs are associated with severe mental illness, and they know that if they now all of a sudden say other illnesses won't be covered, the accountants working for the insurance companies will decide, not the doctors. Do you want to know what will happen if all of a sudden we say we will only cover what they say is serious mental illness? The children will be the ones most discriminated against. Suicide is the third leading cause of death of young people in the United States. Every year 30,000 Americans take their lives. In 90 percent of these situations it is because of depression, and the cause is inadequately treated mental illness. Every 18 minutes a child or adult takes their life because of the unmitigated, searing pain of depression and mental illness, and next year, while Americans wait for fairness in mental health care, thousands more will die and millions more will suffer because the House of Representatives, the Republican leadership, couldn't stand up to the insurance industry and couldn't do the right thing. And the White House couldn't see its way to help. I thank the 67 Senators who helped. I thank the 244 House colleagues who helped. I thank the 154 organizations that have supported this legislation. I thank the Coalition for Fairness in Mental Illness Coverage, and I thank all of the organizations that are involved in that coalition. I look forward to the day when people with mental illness will receive decent, humane, and timely health care. It will be a good day for our country. A critical vote occurred in the Labor Health and Human Services conference committee earlier this week when 10 House members decided whether Congress would respond to the will of the people and establish fair treatment for people with mental illness. They decided they would not. The Mental Health Equitable Treatment Act (S. 543), supported by 67 Senators and 244 House members, was included in the Senate version of the LHHS appropriations bill, but not in the House version. Most of the 32 conferees had expressed strong support for this bill, and thus had their chance to vote their conscience and resist the enormous pressure that had been brought to bear by the business and insurance industries to kill this measure. Unfortunately, these lobbyists were joined by the House Republican Leadership and the White House to stop this bill in its tracks. They succeeded when the 10 House Republicans voted against accepting the mental health provision. Mental health parity was dropped. House leaders are reportedly promising to hold hearings on parity for next year, and I strongly urge them to do so, and to allow no further delay to pass a full mental health parity bill. I look forward to continuing my long partnership with Senator Domenici and working with the House to ensure that such hearings are fair and represent all those with mental illness. Mental health parity supporters on the House side have waited nine years for the authorizing committees to do just that and move the mental health parity legislation in the House. The White House too has expressed support for working on mental health parity legislation next year, though they had no explanation for their opposition to moving the bill now. They were very pleased with the bill as it was voted out of the Senate HELP committee with a vote of 21-0 on August 1, 2001. Yet, when Americans with mental illness needed the support of their President, now more than ever, he was not there for them. Sometimes opponents claim that ending unfair limits for mental health care will cost too much, yet the Congressional Budget Office reported that the bill would increase total premium costs by only 0.9 percent. Moreover, this estimate does not even take into account the cost savings that have resulted in overall health care costs when mental health care is properly covered. Nor does it consider the cost savings in the workplace when absenteeism is reduced, and productivity is increased. Something else is lurking behind the claim of cost problems. What is lurking there is the continuing and widespread discrimination against people with mental illness in our health care system. The stigma against people with mental disorders has persisted throughout history. As a result, people with mental illness are often afraid to seek treatment for fear that they will not be able to receive help, a fear all too often realized when they encounter outright discrimination in health coverage. Why is it that because the illness is located in the brain, and not the heart or liver or stomach, that such stigma persists? One of the most serious manifestations of stigma is reflected in the discriminatory ways in which mental health care is paid for in our health care system. Health plans routinely set aside ``mental'' illnesses as distinct from ``physical'' illnesses in health care coverage. Inexplicably, they set an arbitrary number of hospital days or visits, or a higher level of copayments or deductible, as a way to handle mental health care. There is no clinical or scientific evidence that mental illness, or any illness for that matter, can always be treated successfully within a fixed number of days. Nor is there any economic or moral justification for charging people with mental illness more money for their care. One can only conclude that health plans try to save money at the expense of people with mental illness, and they bank on the stigma that accompanies this illness to discourage individuals from demanding better care. What a sad commentary on our health care system, and on our country. The opponents, business and insurance lobbyists and their Congressional friends, who cite cost issues fail to recognize that proper treatment of mental illness actually saves money. They ignore the $70 billion per year cost of untreated mental illness. They also fail to recognize that our society picks up the cost of untreated mental illness in any case, for untreated illnesses don't just go away. Children with mental illness may end up in public institutions, foster care, or jail because their parents cannot afford their care. Adults who have private insurance are often forced into public health care systems financed through State governments, Medicare, and Medicaid. These systems are then forced to take scarce resources from those who have no insurance. Families are forced into bankruptcy; lives are broken; and lives are lost. We also know that the number of people with serious mental illnesses in America's jails and prisons today is five times greater than the number in state mental hospitals. That is what happens when people, including those with jobs and private health insurance, do not get adequate care. How can our country tolerate this kind of abuse of basic human rights? Prisons, as the Washington Post editorial noted last Monday, are ``the new asylums of the 21st century.'' This criminalization of the mentally ill is inhumane. It is also emotionally and financially costly, and a testament to government failure at all levels. We cannot afford to lose any more lives and we must not let those with mental illness go on being treated as criminals or as unworthy of medical care. Opponents also often try to defeat mental health parity legislation by claiming they want to cover mental illness, but only ``serious'' mental illness, and thus they would limit coverage to a selected list that is also designed to discriminate, most of all against children. The bill that was developed this year was carefully crafted to address the health needs of all those with mental illness as well as the concerns of employers, and it did so without discriminating against particular diagnoses. The insurance industry is very aware that 90 percent of their costs associated with mental illness are associated with the most severe, as is true for other kinds of health issues as well. And yet, they want to oppose coverage for life-threatening illnesses that accountants, and not doctors, have listed as not ``serious''. Any effort on the part of the lobbyists, the House Republicans, or the White House to limit coverage by particular diagnoses should be stopped immediately. It is just another way to try to stop the effort to provide fairness in treatment for people with mental illness. We know that mental illness is a real, painful, and sometimes fatal disease. It is also a treatable disease. The gap between what we know from scientific research and clinical expertise and what we do on behalf of patients is lethal. Suicide is the third leading cause of death of young people in the U.S. Each year, 30,000 Americans take their lives, and in 90 percent of these situations, the cause is inadequate treated mental illness. This is one of the true costs of delaying this bill that I hope those who voted against this understand: Every 18 minutes, a child or adult takes their lives because of the unmitigated, searing pain of depression or other mental illness. Next year, while Americans wait for fairness in mental health care, thousands will die and millions will suffer. Parity will do so much to end the unfair cost requirements, access limits, and personal indignities that people seeking mental health care have been forced to endure. Parity in private insurance has been shown to save other health care costs and would revolutionize our country and our health care system in extraordinarily humane ways. Congress was stopped from doing this right now because of a few members and their lobbyist friends. We must not let these powerful lobbyists subvert the will of the Congress and the will of the 154 supporting organizations of the 2001 Mental Health Equitable Treatment Act and the millions of Americans they represent whose lives are touched by the pain, suffering, and sorrow of mental illness. I thank the 67 Senate and the 244 House colleagues who worked hard to do the right thing for people with mental illness, and I urge them to not take this defeat lightly. I especially want to thank the 154 organizations who supported this legislation and fought for its passage, particularly the Coalition for Fairness in Mental Illness Coverage and its member organizations: American Managed Behavioral Healthcare Association, American Medical Association, American Psychiatric Association, American Psychological Association, Federation of American Hospitals, National Alliance for the Mentally Ill, National Association of Psychiatric Health Systems, and National Mental Health Association. We must return quickly to this bill early in 2002 and accept no excuses from the Administration or the House for any further delay. I look forward to the day when people with mental illness receive decent, humane, and timely health care. It will be a good day for our country.