Paul Wellstone

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Yes.

Mr. WELLSTONE. What is the ruling of the Chair?

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I will take some time now and I will reserve the final 5 minutes right before the vote. Senator Reed, in his characteristically gracious style, thanked his staff and other staff here for their great work. I would as well. I include Joe Morningstar who works with me in that mix. I also say to Senators Kennedy and Gregg that I appreciate all of their commitment and all of their very hard work. I say to Senator Jeffords that I greatly appreciate his soul, his unbelievable commitment to children, how strongly he feels about this question. And I very much find myself in agreement with his analysis. I must say with a smile that I am amazed that so many of my colleagues are now supporting a Federal mandate right under the school district saying every school district--school districts have represented the essence of graduate political culture in our country-- every school district, every school, you will test every child, grades 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8. I must say that I think this oversteps, if not the authority, the sort of boundaries of congressional decisionmaking on education. Here I am, a liberal Senator from Minnesota, but this is my honest-to-God belief. I am just amazed that so many Senators have voted for this, especially my conservative friends. Having said that, I voted for the bill when it was on the Senate floor for two reasons: One, we had the IDEA program mandatory. That is hugely important in terms of getting funding back to our States and school districts. No. 2, I wanted to get on the conference committee to try to make the bill better. I thank both my colleagues. I can't say the Chair and I always agreed on everything, but I wanted to thank them for letting me be on the conference committee. I enjoyed the work. There is a lot of good policy in this bill. I will be proud of whatever I contributed, but also many Senators contributed to that. Let me just say that for my own part, the big issue with me is this sort of rush to testing, as if it is the reform. The testing is supposed to test the reform, it is not supposed to be the reform. This focus on standardized tests, multiple choice tests, and teachers teaching to it has become drill education. It is educationally deadening. There are a lot of amendments and provisions in this bill I had a chance to work on that talk about high-quality testing, how we do that, and multiple measures, giving our States maximum flexibility so that they have 3 years in the aggregate of testing before they begin to use them as high stakes testing, see how schools do. And they don't have to start until 2005 or 2006. Therefore, we don't get the result until 2008 or 2009, and I am glad we will not have this mad rush to the worst of standardized testing. There are some good provisions in this bill that will make a difference when it comes to having high-quality testing. We also have very good legislation in here that deals with teacher recruitment and retainment. That had to do with Senators Hutchison, Clinton, Kennedy, and DeWine. That is a huge issue--how we can recruit and retain teachers. Parent information and resource centers, local family information centers, the ways in which you can have parents more involved--and quite often you have to do it through some of the nonprofits and nongovernmental organizations in the neighborhoods and communities-- that is extremely important. We have a great program in Minnesota after which this is modeled. I am so glad that is in the bill. Then I thank Sheila my wife because she is my teacher when it comes to violence in homes, and there are some really good provisions in this bill that deal with children who witness violence and how to help them. That is all to the good. But we had the chance to make our rhetoric of the last 26 years about the IDEA program a reality. We did that on the Senate side, but the House Republican leadership killed it on the House side and the administration opposed it. That is what I am saddest about. I believe we could have made the fight for children in education, and we could have said to this administration: You cannot realize this goal of leaving no child behind unless the resources are there to go with the testing. The tests don't bring more teachers. The tests don't lead to smaller class size. The tests don't lead to good textbooks. The tests don't lead to better technology. The tests don't mean the children come to kindergarten ready to learn. All of these things have to change. Without a commitment to making IDEA mandatory and making the full funding over a 6-year period that should have been this year, we cheat our States and school districts and our schools, and we cheat our teachers and we cheat our children. That is why I oppose this legislation. People in my State of Minnesota are angry because they believe by acceding to the House Republican position and the administration position, we have cheated Minnesota out of $2 billion of IDEA money over the next 10 years--about $45 million on the glidepath this year. They are angry because no longer are we going to be able to have all-day kindergarten in a lot of our schools. They are angry because we are having to eliminate some of our good early childhood development programs. They are angry because we are going to have to eliminate some of our afterschool programs. And they are angry because we are eliminating teachers and we are increasing class size. They are angry because we are having to make cuts in the school lunch program. They are angry because we are having to make cuts in transportation. There are first graders who are going to have to walk a mile, and seventh graders 2 miles, to go to school because the bus service has been cut out. Colleagues, if we had lived up to our commitment on full funding of IDEA, we would not have to make those cuts in Minnesota. But we did. That is why I will vote no. I will vote no for my State of Minnesota. The Center for Education Policy has a quote that I think is so important: Policymakers are being irresponsible if they lead the public into thinking that testing and accountability alone will close the learning gap. Policymakers on the State and national level should be wary of proposals that embrace the rhetoric of closing the gap, but do not help build the capacity to accomplish that goal. I believe what we have here is a Federal unfunded mandate calling on our States and school districts to do more with less, calling on them to test every child every year, grades 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8, and telling them that they have to do so without a Federal mandate that every child will have the same opportunity to do well on these tests. Where are the resources to make sure that all the children in America have the same chance to do well? And when they don't do well on these tests or the schools don't do well, where are the additional resources to help them? Not in this bill. When you start talking about we have increased funding for title I, no, not in real dollar terms. We are in a recession. There are many more children who are eligible. We are not doing any more funding in real terms. About a third of the eligible children are going to get the funding, and that is it. We didn't live up to our commitment to fully fund the IDEA program, and there is a pittance in the Federal budget for early childhood development so that children can come to school ready to learn. The President and the administration talk about leaving no child behind--the mission of the Children's Defense Fund--and that is the title of this bill. We cannot realize the goal of leaving no child behind on a tin cup budget. We are setting a lot of schools and children and school districts up for failure because we have not lived up to this promise. We are calling on the schools to be more accountable. But what about our accountability to our States and our school districts and our teachers and our children? We have failed the test of accountability by not making the IDEA program mandatory and providing full funding. We have failed the test of accountability by not providing that.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Five minutes of the original 15?

Mr. WELLSTONE. I will take another 2 minutes.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Senator for his graciousness.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I want to take 1 minute to respond, and I want to yield the floor to Senator Dayton for a few minutes, and that will be in opposition.

Mr. WELLSTONE. How about Senator Mikulski speaking and then Senator Dayton will follow?

Mr. WELLSTONE. That is what I was trying to do.

Mr. WELLSTONE. No.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Senator Gregg, we will try to do this again. First of all, I thank my colleagues for their fine work. Second, it is a little frustrating for me. There are many provisions in this bill that I had a chance to work on and to write. I am proud of it. But I have to say to the Senator and especially my conservative friends that this is a stunning unfunded mandate. You are taking the essence of grassroots political culture and school districts and telling every school district and every school to test every child in grades 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7--not just title I but every child in every school. I have heard discussions about national priorities. This bill now makes education a national priority. But the only thing we have done is have a Federal mandate that every child will be tested every year, but we don't have a Federal mandate that every child will have the same opportunity to do well in these tests. If they do not do well, they will need additional help. Colleagues, just because there is money for the administration of the tests doesn't mean this isn't one gigantic unfunded mandate. Look at this in the context of recession, hard times, and the cutbacks in State budgets and cutbacks in education. Look at this in the context of our now adding a whole new requirement and telling every district they have to test, having high stakes and holding the schools accountable. My colleague from New Hampshire said: Senator Wellstone, you are talking about the IDEA program, but that is not really ESEA, and that is separate from title I. That is not what I hear in Minnesota. I thank Senator Harkin for championing this cause. What I hear at the local level is if we had given Minnesota the $2 billion they would have gotten if we made it mandatory on a glidepath for full funding over the next 10 years, and $45 million this year, I was told we would put 50 percent of it into children with special needs. But then we could have additional dollars for other programs. Right now, the Federal Government has not lived up to its promise. We are now taking our own money that we could be using for afterschool, for technology, for textbooks, for teacher recruitment, and we have to spend that money; whereas, we would have that additional money available if you would just provide the funding for IDEA. You can't separate funding for IDEA from any of the other educational programs. This is not just about the children who have a constitutional right to have the best education. That is Senator Harkin's, and it is his soul. He has made that happen. This is also about all the other children and support for educational programs at the local level. Title I money has gone up. But in the context of economic hard times and all the additional families and children who are becoming barely eligible, I will tell you something. I know that some Senators do not like to hear this. We are in profound disagreement on this. I think in our States we are going to hear from school board members and teachers, and we are going to hear from the educational community. They are going to say to us: What did you do to us? You gave us the tests, and then you gave us hardly anything that you said you would give us when it came to IDEA. You didn't provide the resources. You made this a giant unfunded mandate. You say you are going to hold our schools accountable, but by the same token, you haven't been accountable because you have not lived up to your promise. They are right. I think there is going to be a real negative reaction from a lot of States. In my State of Minnesota, we have hard economic times. We are cutting back on education. We are laying off teachers. I have two children who teach in our public schools. I have been to a school about every 2 weeks for the last 11 years. I believe I know this issue well. We are seeing all of these cutbacks. Minnesota is going to say: Why didn't you live up to your promise? You have given the tests and all this rhetoric about how it is a national priority, and I don't believe the Bush administration is going to make this a commitment next year. I do not know that you do. Frankly, they now have this education bill. This was our leverage, which was to say we can't realize this goal of leaving no child behind--not on a tin cup budget--not unless you make this commitment. And there will be no education reform bill because it can't be reformed unless we live up to our commitment of providing the resources. And we have not. I was in a school yesterday--the Phalen Lake School. I loved being there. It is on the east side of St. Paul. I don't think one of the students comes from a family with an income of over $15,000, or maybe $10,000 a year. It is just a rainbow of children with all kinds of culture and history. They are low-income children in the inner city. Do you know why I went. They raised money to help the children in Afghanistan. The President asked them to do so. They are all beautiful. I loved being there. But do you want to know something. I know what those children need because there are teachers who tell me what they need. They need the resources for more good teachers and to retain those teachers. They need to come to kindergarten ready to learn without being so far behind. Where is our commitment to affordable child care? We have $2 trillion in tax cuts, and $35 billion or $40 billion in the energy bill as tax cuts for producers. Where is the commitment to developmental child care from this Congress? I know what they need. They need more afterschool programs. They need a lot more title I money--not just 33 percent or 34 percent of these children but many more children, and more help for reading and smaller class size. They need all of that. We could have provided them a lot more, and we didn't. I will vote no. I yield the floor.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Madam President, actually, I think I have said what I wanted to say. I feel as though I was speaking for a lot of people in Minnesota and around the country. My colleagues, I have figures I will leave everyone in terms of our national commitment. In 1979, close to 12 percent of the Federal budget was devoted to education. It is now down to 7 percent. If we just were where we were in 1979, 30 some years ago, we would be allocating an additional $21 billion to education today. I have heard colleagues say that this is all about equal opportunity for every child. There is nothing I believe in more. I know Senators can agree to disagree. If I had one vision, one hope, one dream that I cared more about for Minnesota and the country than any other, it would be that every child, starting with the littlest of the children, regardless of color of skin, urban/rural, income, gender, every child would have the same chance to reach her or his full potential. That is the goodness of our country. When I was in Phalen Lake school yesterday, that was the goodness of that school, those teachers and what they were trying to do under incredibly difficult circumstances. I wish I could believe that this bill lived up to that promise. When I look at the resources, it doesn't. Make no mistake about it, a test every year doesn't give our schools the resources to either recruit or to retain more teachers. A test every year does not lead to smaller class size. It doesn't lead to better lab facilities. It doesn't lead to more reading help for children who need the help. It doesn't lead to better technology. It doesn't lead to more books. It doesn't lead to making sure the children are prepared when they come to kindergarten. Many of them are so far behind. It doesn't mean we will have afterschool programs. It doesn't mean any of that. I am all for accountability. I am all for testing and accountability to see how the reform is doing. I am not for the argument that the actual testing represents the reform. We have done one piece, the accountability. We haven't given our children and our schools and our teachers the resources they need. One final time, I have shouted it from the mountaintop 1,000 times on the floor: Mr. President, you cannot realize the goal of leaving no child behind, the mission of the Children's Defense Fund, on a tin cup budget. That is what you have given us. I vote no.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I rise today to provide a perspective on the recent Senate confirmation of John Walters to the position of Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy. In the coming months, I intend to raise certain issues with Mr. Walters regarding his stated positions about the priorities of his office as it deals with our country's domestic drug policy, and I hope my colleagues will do the same. First, I urge President Bush and Mr. Walters to keep their public commitment to focus on the severe addiction problems faced in our own country and to significantly improve the infrastructure of private and public drug and alcohol treatment and prevention programs. On May 10, 2001, President Bush made a firm public commitment to invest an additional $1.6 billion in new funding for drug and alcohol treatment over the next five years. Investing in drug and alcohol treatment is not only a critically important public health priority that will save the lives of millions Americans across this nation, it will also save tax dollars. Research has shown that health care, child welfare, and criminal justice costs decrease, and the productivity of individuals who receive proper treatment helps improve the health and the economy of our country as they return to work, pay taxes, and care for their families. In addition to investing in public funding, John Walters and the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy should support the passage of full addiction treatment parity legislation so that private insurance can be the first line of defense for the millions of Americans who are employed, have health care, but are struggling with the disease of addiction, and are routinely denied adequate care. By contrast, federal employees enjoy full treatment parity for addiction treatment, and it is time for the rest of Americans to have this health care benefit as well. President Bush and John Walters should continue the support for improving private insurance coverage by supporting passage of full substance abuse parity legislation. Strengthening the drug and alcohol treatment and prevention services has taken on greater importance in the aftermath of the tragedies of September 11th. Stress and trauma associated with these event, and the ensuing international events and economic downturn will continue to strain the personal, psychological, and economic resources of individuals and families across our nation. Unfortunately many of them will turn to drugs and alcohol as a way to cope with these pressures, and may develop serious addiction disorders. In a special report issued in response to the terrorist attacks, the National Institute on Drug Abuse reviewed the research literature and reported that, ``Stress is one of the most powerful triggers for relapse in addicted individuals, even after long periods of abstinence. . . . Studies have reported that individuals exposed to stress are more likely to abuse alcohol and other drugs or undergo relapse.'' Researchers funded by the National Institute on Drug Abuse have reported increases in the street sales of drugs in New York City after the events of September 11th. Reports from drug treatment and prevention providers across the nation have shown an increase in the need for treatment and prevention services following these recent events. Working to destigmatize the disease of addiction so that individuals who suffer from this disease will seek treatment is imperative. Americans will be looking to the President and John Walters as the Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy to provide the leadership and to shape this message to the country that addiction can be successfully treatment, and to support this message by providing adequate funding. I urge John Walters to find innovative ways for the Office of National Drug Control Policy to work closely with recovering communities, national organizations, state associations of treatment and prevention providers, anti-drug coalitions, families, employers, and other community leaders to reduce stigma and promote recovery, treatment, and prevention nationwide. Finally, President Bush has nominated a highly qualified individual, Dr. Andrea Barthwell, to serve as the Deputy Director for Demand Reduction for the Office of National Drug Control Policy. Dr. Barthwell is extraordinarily qualified for this position and the Administration would be fortunate to have her expertise readily available as the lead White House advisor on domestic drug and alcohol treatment and prevention issues. In addition to being a physician who has long practiced addiction medicine, Dr. Barthwell presently serves as the President of the American Society of Addiction Medicine and is on the board of three federal advisory committees for the National Institute on Drug Abuse, the Food and Drug Administration, and the Center for Substance Abuse Treatment. Dr. Barthwell also has worked with policy makers at the highest levels of state and federal government. I urge the Senate to confirm Dr. Barthwell's nomination as soon as possible. Her contributions will be invaluable as the White House implements the President's addiction treatment expansion initiative, one which could go a long way to help our country effectively deal with the serious domestic drug addiction problem that it faces.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, speaking on behalf of the leader, we expect several amendments to be offered and debated today. No rollcall votes will occur today. The next rollcall vote will occur on Tuesday at approximately 11 a.m. on the adoption of the ESEA conference report.

Mr. WELLSTONE

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

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

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I will be very brief in the summary of this amendment. This amendment restricts new or expanding large confined animal feeding operation, CAFOs, from receiving Environmental Quality Incentive Program (EQIP) funds for animal waste structures. We will go over the definitions as we get into this debate on Tuesday, but, for example, 1,000 animals is equal altogether to 9,090 hogs. These are big operations. This amendment also deals with what we call multiple CAFOs. The amendment prohibits an entity with interests in more than one CAFO from receiving more than one EQIP contract, thus prohibiting double payments. This measure helps ensure that this Federal farm conservation programs and the funds are not used to promote consolidation and concentration of livestock production. The third part to this amendment deals with flood plains. The amendment restricts the use of EQIP funds for new or expanding livestock waste facilities in a 100-year flood plains. Locating a large animal waste facility in a flood plain is contrary to all good conservation common sense. Fourth, the amendment requires animal operations receiving EQIP funds for structures to also develop and follow a comprehensive nutrient management plan to ensure that the conservation assistance does not end with the storage of manure but that the entire operation be taken into account, including the ultimate disposition of the waste in terms of being applied to the land. Finally, on payments, the amendment doubles the current annual payment limitation for EQIP, which I would rather not do. The amendment increases the annual payment from $10,000 to $20,000, and doubles the current payment limit per 5-year contract from $50,000 to $100,000 while retaining the current law waiver authority for the annual limitation at the discretion of USDA. The committee bill, by contrast, increases the cap of $50,000 and also a 3-year cap of $150,000. My colleagues should know that the current average EQIP contract for animal waste structures is approximately $13,000. So this amendment would not affect the majority of those producers who receive and need assistance from this program. We are really talking about the very largest of operations here. And don't forget the existing CAFOs around the country would not be affected, this amendment only applies to new or expanding CAFOs. I have summarized this amendment. It deals with a growing problem in agriculture; that is to say, the concentration in the livestock sector, the environmental pollution, and, frankly, Federal subsidies that go to these large farming operations and encourage yet more consolidation and more big business and, in this particular case, more environmental destruction. The amendment is simple. It says we in the Congress should, and will, work to help alleviate the environmental and public health threats posed by these large-scale animal factories. However--I emphasize that word, ``however''--Congress should not be subsidizing the expansion of these large animal confinement operations. That is what this amendment says. My colleagues should know that this amendment has broad support from both the farm and environmental community, from groups such as the National Farmers Union, Defenders of Wildlife, Environmental Defense, Environmental Working Group, Humane Society, National Wildlife Federation, Natural Resources Defense Council, and the Sustainable Agriculture Coalition. I look forward to debating and adopting this amendment. I wanted to lay the amendment down today. I will get back to this debate on Tuesday.

Mr. WELLSTONE. That is correct.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. I will take about 10 seconds. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that after the Johnson amendment I be allowed to offer an amendment.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I say to my colleague from Indiana, would I ever do that?

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

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I rise to support my colleague from South Dakota. Before I continue, it is my understanding that after this amendment, we will go to the Smith amendment on the Republican side. Senators Wyden and Brownback have an amendment they say will be accepted. I ask unanimous consent I then be allowed to offer my amendment after that.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I say to my colleague from South Dakota, I so appreciate his work. What we are saying with this amendment--and it is hard for people not in farm country to understand. The truth is, this is vitally important to consumers. We are saying a packer cannot own a supply of livestock during the 14 days prior to slaughter. Why? Because what is happening is these big packers are buying when prices are low, and then they hold on to the livestock which is ready for slaughter for the purpose of dumping it on the market when prices start to go up. The IBPs or Tysons of this world are basically controlling the market. Frankly, they are jacking the independent producers around. That is exactly what is happening, I say to Senator Johnson. I am very proud to join him with this amendment. Minnesota family farmers tell me the issue they are most in agreement on--whether it is Farm Bureau or Farmers Union--is this whole problem of concentration, these conglomerates that have muscled their way to the dinner table and are shoving family farmers off the land. There was a recent poll done by the Nebraska Institute of Agriculture: 72 percent of farm households agree that packer ownership should be prohibited. To save time, because there are other Senators who want to offer amendments and they are worried about this cloture vote, although I certainly hope we will get cloture, I will not go through the statistics on concentration. Whether it is pork, whether it is beef packers, whether it is turkey processors, chicken broilers, over and over, Economics 101, we have at best an oligopoly--three or four firms that dominate 50 percent of the market--and at worst we have a monopoly. Everywhere farmers work, whether they buy from or sell to, they are up against large conglomerates. It is like an auction: If you have a lot of buyers, you are going to get a decent price. If you have just two people you can bid to, you are not likely to do very well. So what this amendment is all about is trying to give some opportunities to our independent producers. These packers practice acquiring captive supplies through contracts, and then they use their ownership to reduce the number of opportunities for the small and medium-sized farmers to sell their hogs. With fewer buyers and more captive supply, there is less competition for independent farmers' hogs, and, frankly, it is a scam. This is all about lower prices. My colleague from South Dakota already said this, but what we are seeing is a breathtaking amount of consolidation taking place in the food industry. We learned this summer that Tyson's Foods has finalized its agreement to purchase IBP. The deal has merged the country's largest poultry producer with the country's largest processor of red meat. We asked the Department of Justice to investigate, but I do not think the laws are strong enough, and I do not expect this Department of Justice to really take this on. We can at least say: Look, we do not want to have these packers acting to stifle competition, and that is exactly what this amendment is all about. Some are saying we are trying to stifle competition. This amendment does precisely the opposite. We want to restore competition in the livestock markets, and we want to put some freedom back into the free market system. We want to put free enterprise back into the free enterprise system. That is what this amendment is all about. Some say this concentration leads to cheaper prices for consumers, but, frankly, the farm retail spread grows wider and wider. That is the difference between what our producers make and what consumers actually pay at the grocery store. This amendment has the support of a broad base of family farm organizations. This amendment sides with family farmers and ranchers over these agriculture conglomerates, and it boils down to whether or not we want to have independent livestock producers in agriculture or we are going to yield to concentration and see farmers and ranchers become low-wage employees on their own land. That is the trend. That is where we are going. This amendment is an effort to try to fight that. If we continue to stand idle and watch control of the world's food supply fall into the hands of the few, consumers are going to be the real losers. So I say to my colleague from Indiana, I really could talk for hours on this, but I am trying to be brief because I know other Senators have amendments. I will simply say two things: No. 1, this is all about assuring competition. This is an amendment for our independent livestock producers. It is a question of whether we side with them or whether we side with these huge conglomerates who have a tremendous amount of power. This whole manipulation of the market is, from my point of view, outrageous. These conglomerates buy when prices are low and then they dump--basically they keep the prices low by going back to the slaughterhouse and dumping it on the market. It is absolutely outrageous, and I think that is why there is so much support for this amendment in the countryside. Let me say one final thing. Since so many Senators are trying to bring amendments before cloture, I certainly hope we will vote cloture. I do not think this farm bill ought to be stopped. We are talking about a $3 billion increase of net income for our producers in this country. Time is not neutral. I think the Freedom to Farm bill became the ``freedom to fail'' bill. It is time to change this farm policy, and I hope Senators will vote for cloture and we will not see a filibuster and a blocking of this bill. People in the countryside are pretty impatient about this. Time is not on their side. They would like to see a change in agriculture policy.

Mr. WELLSTONE. No, not at all. I heard the Senator from Indiana earlier. I said my understanding was that following the Johnson amendment, we would move to the Republican side and that Senator Smith would then submit an amendment. I was trying to accommodate the Senator from Oregon. My understanding is Senator Wyden and Senator Brownback had an amendment that was going to be taken up and they needed just a few minutes, and then I asked to follow that. That is all.

Mr. WELLSTONE

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