Paul Wellstone

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Madam President, I thank the Chair, and I will try to make this relatively brief. I know the presiding officer has a conference luncheon to go to. Madam President, when I go back to teaching in 7 years, one of the classes that I am going to teach is going to focus on what happened on Friday night on the floor of the U.S. Senate. And I say this with a slight smile because you have to have a twinkle in your eye, but at the same time I say it with a tremendous amount of indignation. In the dark of night my State of Minnesota was cut $524 million in medical assistance for people in our State. I will come back to that in a moment. Late afternoon and early evening I kept asking, ``Where is the Finance Committee amendment on the formula?'' After all, we are not just talking about formula, we are talking about people's lives. At 6 p.m., one version, 9 p.m., the final version. All of a sudden, back room decisions. No chance for review, no chance to talk to constituents. Some States come out doing very well. Texas gains $5.2 billion; that is good for Texas. California loses $4.2 billion; that is not so good for California. Then, in a departure from any rational allocation formula, the legislative language of the amendment contains ``additional amounts,'' additional money. We are talking about people leveraging their votes for the following States: We have $63 million more for Arizona; $250 million more for Florida; $34 million more for Georgia; $76 million more for Kentucky; $181 million more for South Carolina; $250 million more for the State of Washington. And then, at 9 p.m., new legislative language is released adding Vermont to the list, with an additional $50 million. Madam President, in the dark of night, a decision was made by somebody, and I came out on the floor at 9 o'clock and said, ``Who made this decision? Who were the people that made this decision accountable to? What happened to my State of Minnesota? On top of $2.4 billion of cuts in medical assistance, you now have cut my State by $524 million more.'' Madam President, the majority leader came out and said, ``But Minnesota is doing better than in the House formula.'' That is true. There we were being cut $3.5 billion. But we thought we had an understanding. We thought there was an agreement and the reductions had been reduced by $1 billion and the Senate by $2.4 billion. Then the majority leader said something to the effect, ``Well, the Governor supports this.'' Madam President, I am really pleased that the Governor of Minnesota does not support this. Governor Carlson is meeting with the majority leader. He is coming to Washington, DC, to try and find out what happened, and to advocate for our State, which is exactly what he should do. Whether we are Democrats or Republicans, we should be advocating for our States. The most serious part of this decisionmaking process is--actually, there is an ``A'' and a ``B'' to the serious part. A, it is in the dark of the night, behind closed doors--decisionmaking, cutting deals, accountable to nobody, no review, no opportunity to talk to constituents. That is problem No. 1, regardless of what happened to different States. Problem No. 2: My State was cut by $524 million. Problem No. 3: Let us translate the statistics in human terms. We have 425,000 recipients on what we call ``medical assistance'' in Minnesota; 300,000 of them are children. Sixty percent of our payments go to elderly and nursing homes. Many people with disabilities rely on this support so they can stay at home and not be institutionalized. We are projected to grow from 425,000 to 535,000 medical assistance recipients in the year 2002. Madam President, I intend to fight this all the way. Minnesota was shafted in the dark of the night decisionmaking, and a lot of people in my State are going to be hurt. I am going to make sure this formula is reversed. Madam President, I think the more people in the country get a chance to see what is in these budget bills, the more they are not going to like it. If the President is strong and he vetoes these bills--which he should--there is no Minnesota standard of fairness in these budget cuts--and the people have a chance to be engaged in this process, I am absolutely convinced that we can inject some fairness, some elementary basic Minnesota fairness, back into this process. But, for right now, I am not letting up. I heard the Senator from Florida give a brilliant speech Friday night. I say to my colleague from Florida, I am not letting up on this. I am fighting this all the way, until Minnesota gets some fairness in this formula. I am not going to let folks, in a back room deal, shaft my State and a lot of the citizens in my State. I am delighted that the Governor of Minnesota is going to join in this effort to make sure we get a fair formula.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. I ask unanimous consent for 5 minutes before we close, if that would be all right.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I do not think we should be voting on this amendment. In the last several hours, my State of Minnesota just discovered that it will be faced with $500 million more in reductions on top of the $2.4 billion. What happened, Senators, in the last several hours? What kind of decisionmaking process is this? It does seem to me that people in Minnesota and across this country have a right to know what in the world is going on here. These are the lives of our children--they are covered. These are the lives of elderly people, nursing homes--they are covered. These are the lives of people with disabilities--they are covered. We should not even be voting tonight. This is back-room deals. This is not a democratic--with a small ``d''--process.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, this amendment knocks out what is euphemistically called the deep water royalty relief. It in fact is probably the most brazen subsidy that goes to oil companies that are doing very well. So well, Mr. President, that in the House of Representatives, 261 Representatives voted against this--100 Republicans. That is why it got put in reconciliation. That is why somehow it wound up in this reconciliation bill. It ought to be knocked out. This is not public interest. This is special interest. It is brazen. It is really a scandalous subsidy when we are asking all sorts of citizens to tighten their belt. I hope we will vote to knock this out.

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

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, this would limit the farm payments to $40,000 a year. Over the last 10 years, only 2 percent of the recipients have received more than that. It saves $1.6 billion over 7 years. It assures that the larger farmers are a part of deficit reduction and from these savings, this goes back to help some of the mid-sized farmers and also the Conservation Reserve Program. I send this amendment to the desk with Senator Lieberman as a cosponsor.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, may I have order in the Chamber first, please?

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

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, this amendment that I send to the desk with Senator Chafee would just provide States with the flexibility to continue to provide medical assistance under the Medicaid Program to disabled individuals, especially children that are staying home, in order to make sure that they can continue to stay at home. It is very important in the disability communities, and I am very pleased to have the support from both sides of the aisle.

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

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, this is a Wellstone-Chafee amendment. I send my amendment to the desk.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, since I first came to the Senate I have been active in the fight to protect the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge from oil and gas drilling. I intend to continue the fight to save the Arctic Refuge as we debate the reconciliation bill in the Senate. The Senate reconciliation bill contains a number of provisions that are poor policy, that are unfair to those least able to defend themselves, and that consider only short-term gain and not long-term loss; the proposed plan to open the Arctic Refuge to gas and oil drilling is one such provision. Since I have been in the Senate I have spoken time and time again about the fact that this is poor energy policy, poor environmental policy, and cynical politicking. The Arctic Refuge is one of the last pristine wilderness areas left in America, it contains the Nation's most significant polar bear denning hibitat on land, supports 300,000 snow geese, migratory birds from six continents--some of those birds even make it to my State of Minnesota, and a concentrated porcupine caribou calving ground. While proponents of drilling in the Arctic Refuge will tell you that the caribou are not harmed by drilling, an October 21, 1995 article in the Anchorage Daily News reports that new information shows a sharp decline in the Central Arctic caribou herd. While nobody knows exactly what caused the decline, most of it has occurred in the part of the herd that lives near the oil field. Despite our uncertainty about the effects oil drilling would have on the animals, there are those who continue to push for oil drilling without an update environmental impact statement [EIS] as required by current law. An EIS has not been done in the area since 1987. We just do not know what drilling would do to the Arctic Refuge, and barreling ahead with drilling is just poor environmental policy. The Gwich'in people have relied on those porcupine caribou for thousands of years to provide their food and meet their spiritual needs. I have heard them speak very eloquently and directly about what oil drilling in the Arctic Refuge would do to their way of life. People like the Gwich'in want to save the environment. But they are not the big oil companies. They do not have the money. They do not have the lobbyists, and they do not have the lawyers here every day. In today's Washington environment, that seems to mean that their concerns are less important than the concerns of big industry. Even if whatever amount of revenue gained were somehow worth destroying this unique land and the lives of the Gwich'in, there are a number of questions regarding whether the Arctic Refuge has oil, how much it has and what the cost would be to retrieve it. Estimates are broad and disagreements are rampant. Even I, a nonscientist, know one thing for certain: There is no way to tell how much revenue can be gained from drilling in the Arctic Refuge. New information, however, suggests previous figures overestimated possible revenue. Alice Rivlin, Director of the Office of Management and Budget, stated in an October 25 letter that drilling in the Arctic Refuge would produce ``significantly less revenue than has been scored by the Congressional Budget Office.'' New studies suggest there is less oil than previously thought, the price of oil as projected by the Department [[Page S 15997]] of Energy has dropped and serious concerns remain about whether Alaska will stage a court battle to change their share of the revenue from 50 percent to 90 percent as the State claims its statehood act allows. Regardless of who is right, barreling ahead with incomplete information and short-term thinking is just plain poor energy policy. The administration has indicated that if the bill includes drilling in the Arctic Refuge, the President will veto it. I would wholeheartedly support him if he did. Throughout the course of my years of work to save the Arctic Refuge, I have heard from many Minnesotans, including many children, about their desire to preserve it. Our natural resources are among the most important things we can leave to these future generations. Our children and our grandchildren deserve more than what this bad energy policy, bad environmental policy, and shortsighted politicking would leave them. I will continue to speak for all Minnesotans, for their sense of fairness and equity and for their love and concern for the environment. I will continue to fight to save the Arctic Refuge from gas and oil drilling. I urge my colleagues to join me.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Reserving the right to object, did the 1 minute apply to the Roth?

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, this amendment is all about plugging tax loopholes, whether we are talking about keeping a strong alternative minimum tax, or getting rid of subsidies for oil companies or pharmaceutical companies. This all goes for deficit reduction--all the savings go into a lockbox--and the total savings is between $60 to $70 billion. I will tell you right now, regular people are tired of having to pay more in taxes because of these egregious loopholes. I urge my colleagues to vote ``aye.'' Mr. President, last night I talked briefly about each of the four amendments I was going to offer separately, that I continued in my omnibus amendment. I now ask unanimous consent that a statement elaborating on each tax loophole, and the reasons for its elimination, which this omnibus amendment proposed to do, be printed in the Record.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Can I ask what the offset is?

Mr. WELLSTONE. I ask unanimous consent that Senator Feingold be included as an original cosponsor of my amendment.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Would the Senator from Nebraska yield for a moment, a split second?

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, facts are stubborn things. It is a fact that IDC's are a special exemption. With my amendment, you could still in this industry capitalize your costs, depreciate them over a longer period of time, just like with most other industries. This is just a special exemption that most other businesses do not get. We have been talking about the tax rate in Puerto Rico. In 1993, I wanted to phase it out, even though I was sympathetic to concerns that doing so suddenly would be unfair. That didn't happen. And now, we have 7 to 10 more years provided for in this bill. My amendment says that by 1997 we have to eliminate it. My amendment says, colleagues, that we have to make tough choices. Barlett and Steele have it right. What do you have? One person's tax code is called the ``privileged person's tax law,'' and for everyone else, call it the ``common person's tax law.'' It is time we understand: regular people pay more because these loopholes allow often very profitable companies--some of the largest and most powerful companies in the country--are paying less. This is revenue that the Government does not collect. We ought to have deficit reduction here. This is between $60 billion to $70 billion of deficit reduction based on a standard of fairness. We would have more for education, more for children, more for health care, more for law enforcement. This is a perfect example of whether or not we will be willing to vote for people we represent or whether or not we are too beholden to powerful special interests. That is what this amendment speaks to. I ask unanimous consent that copies of my prepared statements on each of the four loopholes, elaborating on my policy rationale for closing them, be included in the Record before the vote.

Mr. WELLSTONE. How much time is on the other side, Mr. President?

Mr. WELLSTONE. I am sorry. Let me finish very briefly and reserve the remainder of my time. Other people pay more. I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I thought the Chair said I had 1 minute, 45 seconds.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I will take 30 seconds on this. I remind my colleague that altogether this particular exemption is only about $2.5 billion over the next 5 years. This is a whole package, worth tens of billions, that says, let us close these tax loopholes. People in the country want us to. Second, Mr. President, in all due respect to my good friend from New Mexico, this is exactly the line we so often hear: the sky is falling in. No one is talking about eliminating the oil industry. Nobody is talking about not having oil business. We are just saying, how about closing these tax loopholes so that when companies do not pay and----

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